Farage will surely hammer this point on Thursday and connect that kind of thinking with Rotherham
This is really really disgusting. All Labour care about is the colour of your skin and not the skills and experience which you can offer. I am a minority in my department yet I would only want promotion based on my ability. I would feel humiliated if any promotion was due to meeting quotas.
This is just a taste of what Labour's racist policies will do to this country:
Personally, very impressed with Labour's BAME manifesto. Lots to work on to get true equality and fairness...
Why can't there be a single manifesto for everyone?
All things being equal, that would be ideal.
So why go for an ethnic minority one too?
Because ethnic minorities still have specific issues. Some of which is inherent to the community in question, some of which is about equality etc.
For example, I invited my mother-in-law to visit us from Sri Lanka for a few weeks earlier this year and she was refused a visiting visa. We've obviously appealed this appalling decision but it just goes to underline the perception that ethnic minorities are not treated equally in all facets of life here in the UK.
PS - My in-laws are comfortable middle class folk (my father-in-law is a doctor!)
That is based on nationality, not ethnicity. I frankly think it's a nasty divide and rule tactic to divide the country up into different ethnic groups to treat them differently. I would like to think we could move past this sort of racism.
It just seems very patronising to me. If Labour want to push further on equality with quotas then why not just put a chapter under their manifesto called 'equality' and put it in there?
Otherwise what they're implying is there's one manifesto for whites and one for non-whites, which is divisive and highly distasteful.
Indeed. I honestly don't understand this move. Separating non-whites is a bad move. Maybe politically it helps them with certain voters who are in favour of positive discrimination, but it sends a very poor message. People should be treated equally, not be told that they get a different manifesto to everyone else because of the colour of their skin.
Again, you're speaking from an Utopian perspective. We are quite away from that...
Personally, very impressed with Labour's BAME manifesto. Lots to work on to get true equality and fairness...
Why can't there be a single manifesto for everyone?
All things being equal, that would be ideal.
So why go for an ethnic minority one too?
Because ethnic minorities still have specific issues. Some of which is inherent to the community in question, some of which is about equality etc.
For example, I invited my mother-in-law to visit us from Sri Lanka for a few weeks earlier this year and she was refused a visiting visa. We've obviously appealed this appalling decision but it just goes to underline the perception that ethnic minorities are not treated equally in all facets of life here in the UK.
PS - My in-laws are comfortable middle class folk (my father-in-law is a doctor!)
That is based on nationality, not ethnicity. I frankly think it's a nasty divide and rule tactic to divide the country up into different ethnic groups to treat them differently. I would like to think we could move past this sort of racism.
It just seems very patronising to me. If Labour want to push further on equality with quotas then why not just put a chapter under their manifesto called 'equality' and put it in there?
Otherwise what they're implying is there's one manifesto for whites and one for non-whites, which is divisive and highly distasteful.
Indeed. I honestly don't understand this move. Separating non-whites is a bad move. Maybe politically it helps them with certain voters who are in favour of positive discrimination, but it sends a very poor message. People should be treated equally, not be told that they get a different manifesto to everyone else because of the colour of their skin.
Again, you're speaking from an Utopian perspective. We are quite away from that...
And we're not going to get to where we all want to be by having Separate but Equal Manifestos.
A new low for a party which claims to be "progressive".
tlg86 re: buy to let problem. 1. Build more properties and remove concepts such as "40% affordable/social housing" - it undermines the financial ability of build sites and we end up with less built. 2. Let builders build what the market wants. Only have minimum standards on size and energy efficiency. 3. End the daft FSA rules on "affordability". Make it easier for people with 30%+ of the equity to get a mortgage whatever their age or circumstances. Ending mortgages for the main home for 55+ year olds is madness. It is easier to get a BTL as a 55+ yr old than on their main property.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? - relying on the status quo may not be good enough. Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
Personally, very impressed with Labour's BAME manifesto. Lots to work on to get true equality and fairness...
Why can't there be a single manifesto for everyone?
All things being equal, that would be ideal.
So why go for an ethnic minority one too?
Because ethnic minorities still have specific issues. Some of which is inherent to the community in question, some of which is about equality etc.
For example, I invited my mother-in-law to visit us from Sri Lanka for a few weeks earlier this year and she was refused a visiting visa. We've obviously appealed this appalling decision but it just goes to underline the perception that ethnic minorities are not treated equally in all facets of life here in the UK.
PS - My in-laws are comfortable middle class folk (my father-in-law is a doctor!)
That is based on nationality, not ethnicity. I frankly think it's a nasty divide and rule tactic to divide the country up into different ethnic groups to treat them differently. I would like to think we could move past this sort of racism.
It just seems very patronising to me. If Labour want to push further on equality with quotas then why not just put a chapter under their manifesto called 'equality' and put it in there?
Otherwise what they're implying is there's one manifesto for whites and one for non-whites, which is divisive and highly distasteful.
Equality is impossible as people both on an individual level, as well as members of distinct racial groups, we are endowed with differing abilities.
I could maybe understand why Africa Americans in the US were given affirmative action due to slavery but the idea that an immigrant should turn up in someone else's country and expect preferential treatment is bizarre.
Mr. S, indeed, when that lunatic father claimed he had no idea about extremism that could've affected his teenage daughter and blamed the police, then turned out to have attended foam-flecked hate-filled marches against the West it's very dangerous.
Not only that; he brought his daughter along and then - how can I put this? - was "economical with the actualite" when asked by the Parliamentary Select Committee, if he could think of any reason why she might have wanted to join IS.
tlg86 re: buy to let problem. No need for a new tax. Just enforce current ones. 100k properties not taxed = £1bn lost tax pa. Just needs databases linked to council tax, voting and land registry overlayed with HMRC.
That was also in a time of rent controls.... "In order to maximise his rental income from the properties in Notting Hill, he is said to have driven out the—mostly white—sitting tenants, who had statutory protection against high rent increases, and then filled the properties with recent immigrants from the West Indies. New tenants did not have the same protection under the law as had the previous ones...." wikipedia
Yes, Rachmanism was a direct result of rent controls. Law-abiding landlords were driven out of the market - often with horrendous losses because tenants were so protected in law that even if they didn't pay the very low rents set by the bureaucrats, you still couldn't evict them. As a result crooks, who didn't mind using violent intimidation, took over the market.
It was an absolutely classic example of Labour meddling with the market having a disastrous effect. It took a quarter of a century to correct the problem. No doubt it will take a similar length of time to recover from Milibandesque market meddling, if he becomes PM.
What sort of TV do you have? Not a Smart one I assume. That makes a huge difference.
I'd recommend Bosch, DareDevil, House of Cards, Chuck, Rake, The Boss, Sons of Anarchy - I watch so much that an idea of your preferences would help me narrow a few down.
I'm an atypical viewer who watches an enormous volume of true crime forensic/reality/history/sci-fi/sci-fantasy/science/supernatural/legal dramas.
Miss Plato, alas, I am Netflixless. The ads for Daredevil do look pretty good.
Funnily enough, I joined Netflix last month but have run out of anything to watch ! Partly, my enthusiasm went down when I couldn't get to see it on my telly. Watching on my laptop screen takes a lot of the pleasure away.
What have you watched lately worth mentioning ?
It is a smart TV but the distance between my TV and the wifi router is no more than 10 metres [ probably 8 straight ] but in reality it is L shaped because of the walls and corridors etc.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? - relying on the status quo may not be good enough. Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
Imagine a manifesto for BAME communities which promised them their own law for certain types of disputes as, indeed, happened in Canada when it was Muslim women who campaigned vigorously against a proposal to allow sharia law for Muslim communities. We've already had the last Labour government seeking to impose a quasi-Islamic blasphemy law on all of us.
You do not advance the cause of equality by creating more ghettos.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
What we should have had in the Tory manifesto is a pledge to build a lot more affordable cheap private sector homes on the open market that two wage earners on the minimum wage can afford.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
tlg86 re: buy to let problem. 1. Build more properties and remove concepts such as "40% affordable/social housing" - it undermines the financial ability of build sites and we end up with less built. 2. Let builders build what the market wants. Only have minimum standards on size and energy efficiency. 3. End the daft FSA rules on "affordability". Make it easier for people with 30%+ of the equity to get a mortgage whatever their age or circumstances. Ending mortgages for the main home for 55+ year olds is madness. It is easier to get a BTL as a 55+ yr old than on their main property.
Agree with this. The affordable housing % thing is silly. The real right winger in me also wants a party to stand up to this 'social cleansing' nonsense. On the one hand the left love immigrants coming into the country yet at the same time they will defend the poor's right to live where they want even if they can't afford to live there.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
Yes, I think everyone gets a fair crack. Grammar schools would help. Closing down dogmatic religious schools would also help. Integration is what we need and kids that go to non-Christian religious schools will always have a lot of catching up to do in the real world. I went to a CoE grammar school, it was the best education someone like me could have received and the school was fairly comfortable with the fact that I wasn't Christian but they did make everyone go to Church regardless. My parents were comfortable with that because it meant I could receive an education usually reserved for middle class children going to fee paying schools.
I have received a fair go from employers in this country, I'm not white. I have been asked on a number of occasions to join the Conservative party. The worst insult I have had levelled at me was to be called a "coconut" by someone of my own Indian heritage. If people are willing to integrate then this country is willing to accept us. The problem arises when people arrive who want to keep their backwards cultural ideals that are unacceptable in this country. If they are unwilling or unable to give up that cultural identity and everything it accompanies then I don't think people should be forced to accept it. No one stops me from celebrating Divali, in fact my last two employers have asked me if I wanted a day off for it up front, but by the same token I don't get upset when people wish me a "Merry Christmas" or give me Christmas cards, I just smile and wish them a Merry Christmas.
A longer answer than I had hoped to write, but the simple fact is that it is a two way relationship and I feel that Britain as a country is very, very accepting of people with different colour skin, but we as non-whites must be willing to integrate into society and that means living by British values. Equality between men and women, civility in public, doing some voluntary work and respect and tolerance of gay people and their way of life. If people are unwilling to sign up to these basic values then I don't want them to get special treatment to help them in the workplace.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
Julia Hartley Brewer, a very poor article. Fed the stuff from the socialists at the National Federation of Housing.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
Julia Hartley Brewer, a very poor article. Fed the stuff from the socialists at the National Federation of Housing.
Miss Cyclefree, indeed, the poison may spread from Bradford and Tower Hamlets further afield.
I'm sure Khan's despicable minorities quotas will go down well in certain quarters.
It's Livingstonian politics and a disgrace. The fact that people like him have had a hand (allegedly) in the crafting of the Labour manifestos is one reason why, IMO, Labour as currently constituted are unfit to govern. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Livingstone expelled from the Labour party - he and his ilk are like the Militant Tendency of old. For all the cheeky chappie persona, this is a person who thought nothing of inviting to London and praising a man who believed suicide bombers are a good thing, that it's OK to beat women and kill homosexuals and a lot of other repellent stuff besides.
No respectable social democratic party should have anything to do with such a person. There was a time when Labour would have been horrified at the idea of supporting people who held such views and yet, now, we have a number of Labour MPs - amongst them, the shadow Justice Secretary, Andy Slaughter - who are more than happy to associate themselves with extremists and those who shill for them.
If Galloway were to lose his seat, that would be a bonus.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
Yes, I think everyone gets a fair crack. Grammar schools would help. Closing down dogmatic religious schools would also help. Integration is what we need and kids that go to non-Christian religious schools will always have a lot of catching up to do in the real world. I went to a CoE grammar school, it was the best education someone like me could have received and the school was fairly comfortable with the fact that I wasn't Christian but they did make everyone go to Church regardless. My parents were comfortable with that because it meant I could receive an education usually reserved for middle class children going to fee paying schools.
I have received a fair go from employers in this country, I'm not white. I have been asked on a number of occasions to join the Conservative party. The worst insult I have had levelled at me was to be called a "coconut" by someone of my own Indian heritage. If people are willing to integrate then this country is willing to accept us. The problem arises when people arrive who want to keep their backwards cultural ideals that are unacceptable in this country. If they are unwilling or unable to give up that cultural identity and everything it accompanies then I don't think people should be forced to accept it. No one stops me from celebrating Divali, in fact my last two employers have asked me if I wanted a day off for it up front, but by the same token I don't get upset when people wish me a "Merry Christmas" or give me Christmas cards, I just smile and wish them a Merry Christmas.
A longer answer than I had hoped to write, but the simple fact is that it is a two way relationship and I feel that Britain as a country is very, very accepting of people with different colour skin, but we as non-whites must be willing to integrate into society and that means living by British values. Equality between men and women, civility in public, doing some voluntary work and respect and tolerance of gay people and their way of life. If people are unwilling to sign up to these basic values then I don't want them to get special treatment to help them in the workplace.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
Yes, I think everyone gets a fair crack. Grammar schools would help. Closing down dogmatic religious schools would also help. Integration is what we need and kids that go to non-Christian religious schools will always have a lot of catching up to do in the real world. I went to a CoE grammar school, it was the best education someone like me could have received and the school was fairly comfortable with the fact that I wasn't Christian but they did make everyone go to Church regardless. My parents were comfortable with that because it meant I could receive an education usually reserved for middle class children going to fee paying schools.
I have received a fair go from employers in this country, I'm not white. I have been asked on a number of occasions to join the Conservative party. The worst insult I have had levelled at me was to be called a "coconut" by someone of my own Indian heritage. If people are willing to integrate then this country is willing to accept us. The problem arises when people arrive who want to keep their backwards cultural ideals that are unacceptable in this country. If they are unwilling or unable to give up that cultural identity and everything it accompanies then I don't think people should be forced to accept it. No one stops me from celebrating Divali, in fact my last two employers have asked me if I wanted a day off for it up front, but by the same token I don't get upset when people wish me a "Merry Christmas" or give me Christmas cards, I just smile and wish them a Merry Christmas.
A longer answer than I had hoped to write, but the simple fact is that it is a two way relationship and I feel that Britain as a country is very, very accepting of people with different colour skin, but we as non-whites must be willing to integrate into society and that means living by British values. Equality between men and women, civility in public, doing some voluntary work and respect and tolerance of gay people and their way of life. If people are unwilling to sign up to these basic values then I don't want them to get special treatment to help them in the workplace.
What sort of TV do you have? Not a Smart one I assume. That makes a huge difference.
I'd recommend Bosch, DareDevil, House of Cards, Chuck, Rake, The Boss, Sons of Anarchy - I watch so much that an idea of your preferences would help me narrow a few down.
I'm an atypical viewer who watches an enormous volume of true crime forensic/reality/history/sci-fi/sci-fantasy/science/supernatural/legal dramas.
Miss Plato, alas, I am Netflixless. The ads for Daredevil do look pretty good.
Funnily enough, I joined Netflix last month but have run out of anything to watch ! Partly, my enthusiasm went down when I couldn't get to see it on my telly. Watching on my laptop screen takes a lot of the pleasure away.
What have you watched lately worth mentioning ?
Surbiton- just buy an HDMI lead for a tenner and plug into your back socket of your TV- and then you can watch anything from your computer on the TV, similarly with a smart phone or tablet. Your TV will have an HDMI slot, I am convinced. I love watching the Netflix horror flix- they are so bad, they are good. It is one of my guilty pleasures.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
What sort of TV do you have? Not a Smart one I assume. That makes a huge difference.
I'd recommend Bosch, DareDevil, House of Cards, Chuck, Rake, The Boss, Sons of Anarchy - I watch so much that an idea of your preferences would help me narrow a few down.
I'm an atypical viewer who watches an enormous volume of true crime forensic/reality/history/sci-fi/sci-fantasy/science/supernatural/legal dramas.
Miss Plato, alas, I am Netflixless. The ads for Daredevil do look pretty good.
Funnily enough, I joined Netflix last month but have run out of anything to watch ! Partly, my enthusiasm went down when I couldn't get to see it on my telly. Watching on my laptop screen takes a lot of the pleasure away.
What have you watched lately worth mentioning ?
Surbiton- just buy an HDMI lead for a tenner and plug into your back socket of your TV- and then you can watch anything from your computer on the TV, similarly with a smart phone or tablet. Your TV will have an HDMI slot, I am convinced. I love watching the Netflix horror flix- they are so bad, they are good. It is one of my guilty pleasures.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
Yes, I think everyone gets a fair crack. Grammar schools would help. Closing down dogmatic religious schools would also help. Integration is what we need and kids that go to non-Christian religious schools will always have a lot of catching up to do in the real world. I went to a CoE grammar school, it was the best education someone like me could have received and the school was fairly comfortable with the fact that I wasn't Christian but they did make everyone go to Church regardless. My parents were comfortable with that because it meant I could receive an education usually reserved for middle class children going to fee paying schools.
I have received a fair go from employers in this country, I'm not white. I have been asked on a number of occasions to join the Conservative party. The worst insult I have had levelled at me was to be called a "coconut" by someone of my own Indian heritage. If people are willing to integrate then this country is willing to accept us. The problem arises when people arrive who want to keep their backwards cultural ideals that are unacceptable in this country. If they are unwilling or unable to give up that cultural identity and everything it accompanies then I don't think people should be forced to accept it. No one stops me from celebrating Divali, in fact my last two employers have asked me if I wanted a day off for it up front, but by the same token I don't get upset when people wish me a "Merry Christmas" or give me Christmas cards, I just smile and wish them a Merry Christmas.
A longer answer than I had hoped to write, but the simple fact is that it is a two way relationship and I feel that Britain as a country is very, very accepting of people with different colour skin, but we as non-whites must be willing to integrate into society and that means living by British values. Equality between men and women, civility in public, doing some voluntary work and respect and tolerance of gay people and their way of life. If people are unwilling to sign up to these basic values then I don't want them to get special treatment to help them in the workplace.
We know from Ashcroft as well as observation that different ethnic minority groups tend to see things differently from one another. So maybe there is something different in the Black and Muslim British experience to that of other Indian-British people, which makes them think that grammar schools and being urged to be more civil in public are not the correct answer.
In many ways, our backgrounds are similar. I was lucky enough to go to private school (maybe that's where I picked up my progressive tendencies!). We weren't rich but the Asian philosophy of 'education is everything' meant my parents sacrificed everything for me to attend private school.
Work-wise, I have done reasonably well. I can't say for sure that my skin colour has held me back but there have been times in my career where this is how I've felt (particularly early in my career).
However, many of my friends from ethnic communities haven't been so fortunate. Even though overt racism maybe a thing of the past, racism by stealth still exists. Progress has been made but still lots to do.
Having said all that, this country has given me everything. People here are generally very tolerant and understanding. It is by far the BEST country in the World and I'm proud to be British.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
Well, knock me down with a feather :-D
She also doesn't seem to have noticed that the tenants are subsidised for life anyway.
Mind you, her solution is an interesting one - boot them out.
What we should have had in the Tory manifesto is a pledge to build a lot more affordable cheap private sector homes on the open market that two wage earners on the minimum wage can afford.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
There are social house builders out there. Its maybe just a case of ramping up. The pickle we are in is not really to do with the selling off of what was social housing, but the fact that more people want properties. There are more of us, and family dynamics are different.
It is kind of irritating, that Brown, and this government lost an opportunity for some good genuine keynsianism following the crash. The area of the economy most on its knees was house building.
If you are going to piss away tens of billions of pounds, then you could have done far worse than use it to build a few hundred thousand low cost houses. No serious politician with a chance of holding political power wants local authorities running housing. They are a nightmare.
But i feel for those who are stuck renting, and are doing so within the private sector. It isnt just the more expensive rents, its the security of tenure. There is little to no security for a private tenant. If the landlord wants you out, after the minimum term he only needs to give thirty days notice.
In social housing you cant be evicted unless you break the tenancy agreement.
In many ways, our backgrounds are similar. I was lucky enough to go to private school (maybe that's where I picked up my progressive tendencies!). We weren't rich but the Asian philosophy of 'education is everything' meant my parents sacrificed everything for me to attend private school.
Work-wise, I have done reasonably well. I can't say for sure that my skin colour has held me back but there have been times in my career where this is how I've felt (particularly early in my career).
However, many of my friends from ethnic communities haven't been so fortunate. Even though overt racism maybe a thing of the past, racism by stealth still exists. Progress has been made but still lots to do.
Having said all that, this country has given me everything. People here are generally very tolerant and understanding. It is by far the BEST country in the World and I'm proud to be British.
@surbiton I have no idea about the legality, because most of the houses bought by the elderly council tenants are bought at maximum discount by the family, who recoup the "gift" after the relative dies.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Remember during the energy chat when we were being told how terrible it is when governments interfere in markets by setting prices artificially low in a populist manner?
Housing Associations don't have a leasehold landlord function. Why would they? Providing housing for the private sector has nothing to do with their core function. Are the Govt expecting them to build up such a function from scratch, regardless of them not wanting to do so?
What sort of TV do you have? Not a Smart one I assume. That makes a huge difference.
I'd recommend Bosch, DareDevil, House of Cards, Chuck, Rake, The Boss, Sons of Anarchy - I watch so much that an idea of your preferences would help me narrow a few down.
I'm an atypical viewer who watches an enormous volume of true crime forensic/reality/history/sci-fi/sci-fantasy/science/supernatural/legal dramas.
Miss Plato, alas, I am Netflixless. The ads for Daredevil do look pretty good.
Funnily enough, I joined Netflix last month but have run out of anything to watch ! Partly, my enthusiasm went down when I couldn't get to see it on my telly. Watching on my laptop screen takes a lot of the pleasure away.
What have you watched lately worth mentioning ?
Surbiton- just buy an HDMI lead for a tenner and plug into your back socket of your TV- and then you can watch anything from your computer on the TV, similarly with a smart phone or tablet. Your TV will have an HDMI slot, I am convinced. I love watching the Netflix horror flix- they are so bad, they are good. It is one of my guilty pleasures.
Thanks.
£2.50 on ebay. I used my Daughters log in details and enjoyed Breaking Bad, and currently wading through Better call Saul,not too bad, but poor cf BB. Not sure I would pay for a subscription. I do download many films and watch via HDMI from laptop to TV. obviously you do need compatible equipment.
In many ways, our backgrounds are similar. I was lucky enough to go to private school (maybe that's where I picked up my progressive tendencies!). We weren't rich but the Asian philosophy of 'education is everything' meant my parents sacrificed everything for me to attend private school.
Work-wise, I have done reasonably well. I can't say for sure that my skin colour has held me back but there have been times in my career where this is how I've felt (particularly early in my career).
However, many of my friends from ethnic communities haven't been so fortunate. Even though overt racism maybe a thing of the past, racism by stealth still exists. Progress has been made but still lots to do.
Having said all that, this country has given me everything. People here are generally very tolerant and understanding. It is by far the BEST country in the World and I'm proud to be British.
This is the reason I feel like having a special manifesto for non-whites or giving non-whites some kind of special status under the law is a step backwards. We live in a tolerant and respectful society because everyone is treated equally under the law, I don't want to change that balance we have. It may lead to many, many unintended consequences and create racial friction where none currently exists.
Education is the key to this and making people want to integrate into society and be part of British society. Like I said, it is a two way process, non-whites can't be expected to accept unsavoury practices like FGM and honour killing as part of British life, those practices must be eradicated because they are unacceptable in Britain. On the same basis, if someone needs a day off to celebrate Divali, Eid or another religious festival employers should have some understanding.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
A longer answer than I had hoped to write, but the simple fact is that it is a two way relationship and I feel that Britain as a country is very, very accepting of people with different colour skin, but we as non-whites must be willing to integrate into society and that means living by British values. Equality between men and women, civility in public, doing some voluntary work and respect and tolerance of gay people and their way of life. If people are unwilling to sign up to these basic values then I don't want them to get special treatment to help them in the workplace.
We know from Ashcroft as well as observation that different ethnic minority groups tend to see things differently from one another. So maybe there is something different in the Black and Muslim British experience to that of other Indian-British people, which makes them think that grammar schools and being urged to be more civil in public are not the correct answer.
There might well be. But equally it might well be as a result of how such groups - or some of them - behave or are perceived to behave. Experience works both ways, after all.
Indians are perceived to value education very highly. Whereas, for instance, we have had recent instances of schools in areas where there is a large Muslim community of schools being told to limit and restrict education. Whether rightly or wrongly that may well have an effect on how others view people coming from such communities.
Things don't just get done to you. You also do things yourself which don't always put you in the best position. Bleating about how - as a result - you are a victim of others' behaviour, without considering your own actions or inactions is neither sensible nor grown up.
That said, the position of ethnic minorities is not as good as it should be. I just don't think that silly quotas and patronising "here's what we can do for you children" manifestos is the right way of resolving the problems that still exist.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
It happens with council house sales, which is one if the reasons why so many have ended up as buy to lets.
So I read the Green Party manifesto earlier today. Even wordier than the Labour one, but it was presented a bit better. Random thoughts:
£338 billion borrowing rather than £115! Bullfighting, what? I am actually interested how anonymised CVs would work (p.26) LGBTIQ? I think the acronym is getting a little unwieldy. I appreciate they took the effort to put 'bedroom tax' in inverted commas (p.28). Also, on p.44 they describe it in terms of Con devising it and LD backing it, but specifying Miliband taking a year to decide he didn't like it, rather than Labour. A curious distinction. Tried to defend the baby boomers from attack rather weakly. Allowing local authorities to keep trade local by favouring local procurement (p.48) - do EU rules allow that sort of favouritism? I don't know procurement. p.58 Why the pretence that young people are 'growing in sophistication'. My generation was more infantilised than ever before, and that seems likely to continue. Well done, it took until page 63 before I noticed a typo (Eenable)
Final thought - loved the tables at the back, they make me feel better no matter what they actually include or how sensible it might or might not be.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
A waiting time before you can sell on. Last time it was 2 years.
@surbiton I have no idea about the legality, because most of the houses bought by the elderly council tenants are bought at maximum discount by the family, who recoup the "gift" after the relative dies.
Yes, but that is a straightforward inheritance issue. I am talking about a business deal. A Housing Association tenant by dint of this proposed legislation would become the owner of an intangible asset, his right to buy.
Many would not be able to exercise their right [ could not come up with a deposit for the mortgage ] but a financial construction enables them to profit from the scheme. Share the profit basically.
The last time round , I think, there was a restriction that the property could not be sold for 2 years.
I really can't see why such a tenant would not pocket, say, 15%. A £300k property would yield £45k - no small matter. Maybe, it will enable them to really put in a deposit for a mortgage !
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
Well, knock me down with a feather :-D
She also doesn't seem to have noticed that the tenants are subsidised for life anyway.
Mind you, her solution is an interesting one - boot them out.
Many people forget that it was the Conservatives that brought in tenancy for life. It was seen as a necessary precursor to R-T-B because they couldn't justify selling the assets otherwise. These days this doesn't seem to bother them, so they are simultaneously trying to expand R-T-B at the same time as encouraging widespread use of short-term tenancies.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
Well, knock me down with a feather :-D
She also doesn't seem to have noticed that the tenants are subsidised for life anyway.
Mind you, her solution is an interesting one - boot them out.
That's what a well-run RTB scheme effectively does, provided you use the proceeds to build more houses. Never mind the discount - the tenants were going to get that over the years in rent anyway.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
I would imagine the Government will have the opportunity to shape the rules afresh. Right to buy came with conditions. Such as, if you sold it within a certain period you had to pay back the amount, or if the person died within that timeframe it had to be returned.
Maybe the government will want to keep it simple, dont know, but they could put some interesting conditions on the RTB sale. Such as: - the house will be ineligible for housing benefit applications for a set period. - the house will not have the exemption of capital gains tax if sold within a certain period. - If used as a buy to let within a certain period, the housing association have the right to compulsory purchase at sale price.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
A poor article. There are arguments and criticisms to be made against the policy but those ones actually rehearse almost verbatim the ones used against the original Thatcher right to buy scheme in the early 80s.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
A waiting time before you can sell on. Last time it was 2 years.
The tenant [ new owner ] pays interest on the "loan" for 2 years. Still makes money.
They won't be paying a rent after the buy.
A socialist like me should not be giving such advice !
@SouthamObserver There used to be a scheme where companies would go round housing schemes offering to "buy" the house, and leave the tenant in the property paying an "interest only" mortgage. Usually this meant that the tenant only paid the minimum amount as a "rent", leaving the "business" with a nice profit when the "owner" died. With the removal of interest only mortgages, they would need to do it differently.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
I think the tenant has to hold the property for a while afterwards, but I'm not sure.
But the same sort of problem already exists via illegal subletting of council or HA properties. Once you start selling something below market price then you allow arbitrage.
Edit: worth remembering too that there's a cap on the discount. The 70% figure being bandied around is misleading in most cases.
What we should have had in the Tory manifesto is a pledge to build a lot more affordable cheap private sector homes on the open market that two wage earners on the minimum wage can afford.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
There are social house builders out there. Its maybe just a case of ramping up. The pickle we are in is not really to do with the selling off of what was social housing, but the fact that more people want properties. There are more of us, and family dynamics are different.
It is kind of irritating, that Brown, and this government lost an opportunity for some good genuine keynsianism following the crash. The area of the economy most on its knees was house building.
If you are going to piss away tens of billions of pounds, then you could have done far worse than use it to build a few hundred thousand low cost houses. No serious politician with a chance of holding political power wants local authorities running housing. They are a nightmare.
But i feel for those who are stuck renting, and are doing so within the private sector. It isnt just the more expensive rents, its the security of tenure. There is little to no security for a private tenant. If the landlord wants you out, after the minimum term he only needs to give thirty days notice.
In social housing you cant be evicted unless you break the tenancy agreement.
The problem is land supply with ready planning permission to build. Yes, developers play games with land banks and waiting for prices to rise sometimes but much of that is a feature of a constrained market.
Free up and liberalise land where it's needed and they'd soon compete with each other to build and sell as quickly as they could.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
I would imagine the Government will have the opportunity to shape the rules afresh. Right to buy came with conditions. Such as, if you sold it within a certain period you had to pay back the amount, or if the person died within that timeframe it had to be returned.
Maybe the government will want to keep it simple, dont know, but they could put some interesting conditions on the RTB sale. Such as: - the house will be ineligible for housing benefit applications for a set period. - the house will not have the exemption of capital gains tax if sold within a certain period. - If used as a buy to let within a certain period, the housing association have the right to compulsory purchase at sale price.
I don't remember such conditions last time.
In any case, only houses will be sold. I remember many flat buyers life was destroyed after structural faults were found in high rise blocks after they had bought the flat.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
Well, knock me down with a feather :-D
She also doesn't seem to have noticed that the tenants are subsidised for life anyway.
Mind you, her solution is an interesting one - boot them out.
At s time of great need and significant shortage it is not unreasonable to ask those who can afford to move on from social housing to do so. Giving them a big lump sum to take their properties out of the social sector all together is perverse and immoral, especially as all the evidence shows that for every five council properties sold only one is built.
What we should have had in the Tory manifesto is a pledge to build a lot more affordable cheap private sector homes on the open market that two wage earners on the minimum wage can afford.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
There are social house builders out there. Its maybe just a case of ramping up. The pickle we are in is not really to do with the selling off of what was social housing, but the fact that more people want properties. There are more of us, and family dynamics are different.
It is kind of irritating, that Brown, and this government lost an opportunity for some good genuine keynsianism following the crash. The area of the economy most on its knees was house building.
If you are going to piss away tens of billions of pounds, then you could have done far worse than use it to build a few hundred thousand low cost houses. No serious politician with a chance of holding political power wants local authorities running housing. They are a nightmare.
But i feel for those who are stuck renting, and are doing so within the private sector. It isnt just the more expensive rents, its the security of tenure. There is little to no security for a private tenant. If the landlord wants you out, after the minimum term he only needs to give thirty days notice.
In social housing you cant be evicted unless you break the tenancy agreement.
The problem is land supply with ready planning permission to build. Yes, developers play games with land banks and waiting for prices to rise sometimes but much of that is a feature of a constrained market.
Free up and liberalise land where it's needed and they'd soon compete with each other to build and sell as quickly as they could.
The government has created some quite lucrative incentives for local authorities to give planning permission in their areas. In many areas the New Homes Bonus makes up for the loss in their grant that theyve been bleating about for the last three years.
But still, they arent putting them up quickly enough to reduce demand (and why would they?).
Conservative manifesto? Laid out similarly to the Labour one, but a little better with the bullet pointed parts before the reams of text. Random thoughts.
Well done for occasionally saying 'economic plan' rather than 'long term economic plan'. Big push on rural issues. 'Keeping ambition' for reducing immigration? They thought wording like that would slip notice? Surprised they included the bit on FPTP. They wouldn't have to change it if they left it out, but it would give more wriggle room if they wanted. I had no idea people lost their right to vote if they lived abroad too long. I guess I never thought about it. p.59 'Allow police forces to retain a greater percentage of the value of assets they seize from criminals'? Sounds...potentially problematic, particular at a time of tight budgets. Seeing that John Oliver bit on Civil Asset Forfeiture has probably prejudiced my view. I did like the strength of feeling about not imposing artificial regions on England.
All in all, a lot more focus on the dangers of Labour than Labour spent defending their past record in their manifesto, unsurprisingly.
@Tissue_Price They usually had to hold the property for between three to five years minimum. Though of course, if their circumstances changed, this could be waived. It funded some spectacular round the world trips in the early days. (75% discount buys a lot of beer in India)
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
I think the tenant has to hold the property for a while afterwards, but I'm not sure.
But the same sort of problem already exists via illegal subletting of council or HA properties. Once you start selling something below market price then you allow arbitrage.
Edit: worth remembering too that there's a cap on the discount. The 70% figure being bandied around is misleading in most cases.
Has to hold property for 5 years to avoid cuts in the discount given. 70% does not apply in practice in London. £100k is closer to 20% best case.
So is the PB consensus that when Labour tried to steal Tory clothes it was a rubbish idea, but when the Tories try to steal Labour clothes it was genius?
There might well be. But equally it might well be as a result of how such groups - or some of them - behave or are perceived to behave. Experience works both ways, after all.
Indians are perceived to value education very highly. Whereas, for instance, we have had recent instances of schools in areas where there is a large Muslim community of schools being told to limit and restrict education. Whether rightly or wrongly that may well have an effect on how others view people coming from such communities.
Things don't just get done to you. You also do things yourself which don't always put you in the best position. Bleating about how - as a result - you are a victim of others' behaviour, without considering your own actions or inactions is neither sensible nor grown up.
That said, the position of ethnic minorities is not as good as it should be. I just don't think that silly quotas and patronising "here's what we can do for you children" manifestos is the right way of resolving the problems that still exist.
Sure, yes. It's not always easy to work out causation here. If you see the system doing well by you, you buy into the system; education, the police, the job market, and so on. That's true of working- and middle-class, White British communities, too. Many Southerners perceive Northerners as putting less importance on education. Maybe one can say, having done well, that other people should adopt our attitudes and they would be more successful. But it is always hard to challenge the lived experience. So it is equally hard to work out whether a bundle of attitudes is easier to adopt because society as a whole treats one better, or whether society treats one better because one has adopted those attitudes. Either way, it is not at all clear that quotas in one sector of the economy help. The obvious risk is that one rewards the people who would have done equally well in other sectors.
I would disagree in just one regard. Sometimes, things do get done to you. One good example is anti-Black racism, which surely is a phenomenon that we cannot deny has existed all over the Western world. I wouldn't blame people for racism that they are subjected to. So I don't object to people complaining about racism even if they haven't had a blameless life. After all, everybody does stupid things. Some people burn down lots of cactuses, but they go to top schools and Oxbridge so they get by.
So is the PB consensus that when Labour tried to steal Tory clothes it was a rubbish idea, but when the Tories try to steal Labour clothes it was genius?
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
Well, knock me down with a feather :-D
She also doesn't seem to have noticed that the tenants are subsidised for life anyway.
Mind you, her solution is an interesting one - boot them out.
At s time of great need and significant shortage it is not unreasonable to ask those who can afford to move on from social housing to do so. Giving them a big lump sum to take their properties out of the social sector all together is perverse and immoral, especially as all the evidence shows that for every five council properties sold only one is built.
But it is seemingly unreasonable to ask people in social housing with more rooms than they need to move to smaller houses...
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
I would imagine the Government will have the opportunity to shape the rules afresh. Right to buy came with conditions. Such as, if you sold it within a certain period you had to pay back the amount, or if the person died within that timeframe it had to be returned.
Maybe the government will want to keep it simple, dont know, but they could put some interesting conditions on the RTB sale. Such as: - the house will be ineligible for housing benefit applications for a set period. - the house will not have the exemption of capital gains tax if sold within a certain period. - If used as a buy to let within a certain period, the housing association have the right to compulsory purchase at sale price.
I don't remember such conditions last time.
In any case, only houses will be sold. I remember many flat buyers life was destroyed after structural faults were found in high rise blocks after they had bought the flat.
That was an issue with how local authorities managed flats. They had no sinking fund, work was carried out as needed. When people took out the right to buy, the council remained the freeholder and thus the management company. In many cases no mechanism for a sinking fund to cover repairs over the medium to long term was put in places, leaving many with huge unexpected bills. All part of been a home owner.
What we should have had in the Tory manifesto is a pledge to build a lot more affordable cheap private sector homes on the open market that two wage earners on the minimum wage can afford.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
There are social house builders out there. Its maybe just a case of ramping up. The pickle we are in is not really to do with the selling off of what was social housing, but the fact that more people want properties. There are more of us, and family dynamics are different.
It is kind of irritating, that Brown, and this government lost an opportunity for some good genuine keynsianism following the crash. The area of the economy most on its knees was house building.
If you are going to piss away tens of billions of pounds, then you could have done far worse than use it to build a few hundred thousand low cost houses. No serious politician with a chance of holding political power wants local authorities running housing. They are a nightmare.
But i feel for those who are stuck renting, and are doing so within the private sector. It isnt just the more expensive rents, its the security of tenure. There is little to no security for a private tenant. If the landlord wants you out, after the minimum term he only needs to give thirty days notice.
In social housing you cant be evicted unless you break the tenancy agreement.
The problem is land supply with ready planning permission to build. Yes, developers play games with land banks and waiting for prices to rise sometimes but much of that is a feature of a constrained market.
Free up and liberalise land where it's needed and they'd soon compete with each other to build and sell as quickly as they could.
Its not just a case of them holding on to land waiting for the price to rise. In fact that is a small part of it. A big part is them holding on to land as a means of forcing councils to allow them to build on land they want to build on rather than land they are allowed to build on. They hold councils to ransom - especially when those councils are mandated by central government to meet targets for new houses.
p.59 'Allow police forces to retain a greater percentage of the value of assets they seize from criminals'? Sounds...potentially problematic, particular at a time of tight budgets. Seeing that John Oliver bit on Civil Asset Forfeiture has probably prejudiced my view.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
A poor article. There are arguments and criticisms to be made against the policy but those ones actually rehearse almost verbatim the ones used against the original Thatcher right to buy scheme in the early 80s.
And that did lead to a significant decline in the amount of available social housing.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
A waiting time before you can sell on. Last time it was 2 years.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
It happens with council house sales, which is one if the reasons why so many have ended up as buy to lets.
One of the reasons that ex local authority end up as buy to lets, is the yield can be quite high, largely because the way housing benefit is calculated via local housing allowance, these houses end up with substantially higher rents than they really merit, for what their actual value is.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Where precisely does the tenant/owner go with their piddly 15% equity?
So is the PB consensus that when Labour tried to steal Tory clothes it was a rubbish idea, but when the Tories try to steal Labour clothes it was genius?
I don't know about the pb consensus, but my view is that it is pretty rubbish all round and that neither party has remotely prepared the ground for the ju jitsu move that each is attempting. They will both be widely disbelieved.
So is the PB consensus that when Labour tried to steal Tory clothes it was a rubbish idea, but when the Tories try to steal Labour clothes it was genius?
Yes, because the Labour clothes/policies are more popular.
@chestnut They use it to buy a large B and B in Strontian, and semi retire. Other destinations are available, but I like that one as it is where the element strontium got it's name.
Rather than debating the socialist vs the capitalist view of RTB. Why not spend time on whether it is going to make a difference in the GE?
A good point. At the end of the day , it is a blatant political bribe.
It will have a much lower impact than 1983. Many of the juicy ones have already been sold. Also, note , money has to be found for the deposit unless the kind of shenanigans I am talking about comes in. House prices multiple versus wages is now much higher.
One of the reasons that ex local authority end up as buy to lets, is the yield can be quite high, largely because the way housing benefit is calculated via local housing allowance, these houses end up with substantially higher rents than they really merit, for what their actual value is.
Average private HB/LHA £107 Average social HB £92.
The private HB is taxable.
Private landlords are more intent on ensuring that properties are fully occupied, and avoid the plague of empty bedrooms that is afflicting social housing allocation.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Where precisely does the tenant/owner go with their piddly 15% equity?
In London, the piddly sum could be £50k or even more which is £50k more than they had before.
Where ? Put down a deposit to buy a property since they now have the money to do so.
So is the PB consensus that when Labour tried to steal Tory clothes it was a rubbish idea, but when the Tories try to steal Labour clothes it was genius?
I don't know about the pb consensus, but my view is that it is pretty rubbish all round and that neither party has remotely prepared the ground for the ju jitsu move that each is attempting. They will both be widely disbelieved.
I think that's right. They will be kicking themselves if the combination of their manifesto launches in which they have both to some degree aimed to capture the centre ground, and the challengers' debate on Thursday (Greens attacking Labour on austerity, Cameron not present and being attacked by UKIP) allows a resurgence in the minor party vote.
What we should have had in the Tory manifesto is a pledge to build a lot more affordable cheap private sector homes on the open market that two wage earners on the minimum wage can afford.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
There are social house builders out there. Its maybe just a case of ramping up. The pickle we are in is not really to do with the selling off of what was social housing, but the fact that more people want properties. There are more of us, and family dynamics are different.
It is kind of irritating, that Brown, and this government lost an opportunity for some good genuine keynsianism following the crash. The area of the economy most on its knees was house building.
If you are going to piss away tens of billions of pounds, then you could have done far worse than use it to build a few hundred thousand low cost houses. No serious politician with a chance of holding political power wants local authorities running housing. They are a nightmare.
But i feel for those who are stuck renting, and are doing so within the private sector. It isnt just the more expensive rents, its the security of tenure. There is little to no security for a private tenant. If the landlord wants you out, after the minimum term he only needs to give thirty days notice.
In social housing you cant be evicted unless you break the tenancy agreement.
The problem is land supply with ready planning permission to build. Yes, developers play games with land banks and waiting for prices to rise sometimes but much of that is a feature of a constrained market.
Free up and liberalise land where it's needed and they'd soon compete with each other to build and sell as quickly as they could.
Its not just a case of them holding on to land waiting for the price to rise. In fact that is a small part of it. A big part is them holding on to land as a means of forcing councils to allow them to build on land they want to build on rather than land they are allowed to build on. They hold councils to ransom - especially when those councils are mandated by central government to meet targets for new houses.
Problem goes away if you release more land that the market wants to build on.
Come the three-party pact that forms the next government, whatever it may be, these manifestos are all marketing and negotiation exercises. The expensive, popular stuff will be ditched and this disappointment will be blamed on the small parties.
One of the reasons that ex local authority end up as buy to lets, is the yield can be quite high, largely because the way housing benefit is calculated via local housing allowance, these houses end up with substantially higher rents than they really merit, for what their actual value is.
Average private HB/LHA £107 Average social HB £92.
The private HB is taxable.
Private landlords are more intent on ensuring that properties are fully occupied, and avoid the plague of empty bedrooms that is afflicting social housing allocation.
Yes, because labour introduced a 'bedroom' tax in 2007 for private rented housing benefit applications, and over time the market adjusted to counter for it. The coalition copied and pasted the rules for this 'bedroom' tax into the housing benefit rules for social tenants, but added a few caveats to make it easier, such as exemptions for fostering, people in the forces etc. But somehow this was an evil bigoted thing for the tories to copy and paste, but not so when labour originally wrote it.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Where precisely does the tenant/owner go with their piddly 15% equity?
In London, the piddly sum could be £50k or even more which is £50k more than they had before.
Where ? Put down a deposit to buy a property since they now have the money to do so.
We cant have poor people getting their own houses, they might vote tory. Ive often found the most vociferous campaigners against right to buy live in nice areas in homes they own.
There is no feeling in life that you and your partner get when you pick up the keys to the very first home you own. Nothing.
Come the three-party pact that forms the next government, whatever it may be, these manifestos are all marketing and negotiation exercises. The expensive, popular stuff will be ditched and this disappointment will be blamed on the small parties.
Fact. One hopes that this likely outcome being our second coalition in two parliaments, the public will be more understanding and the parties less egregious in their whinging about not being able to implement things.
Come the three-party pact that forms the next government, whatever it may be, these manifestos are all marketing and negotiation exercises. The expensive, popular stuff will be ditched and this disappointment will be blamed on the small parties.
It seems the opposite for Labour. When Labour inevitably don't make the cuts they've proposed in the next government, the SNP will get all the credit.
Where? I don't see any argument at all in that article. Quite apart from anything else, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the policy would free up capital.
A poor article. There are arguments and criticisms to be made against the policy but those ones actually rehearse almost verbatim the ones used against the original Thatcher right to buy scheme in the early 80s.
And that did lead to a significant decline in the amount of available social housing.
Labour contributed to 18 years in opposition by opposing right-to-buy. It was absolutely the right policy at the right time. It led to millions of people who wanted to aspire to home ownership, but who were held under the thumb of the local council, having control and freedom over their own lives. It helped create a mass property owning democracy, and I'm proud of it.
However, I think things are more complex now. We just aren't building anywhere near enough homes. That's my only objection.
So is the PB consensus that when Labour tried to steal Tory clothes it was a rubbish idea, but when the Tories try to steal Labour clothes it was genius?
I don't know about the pb consensus, but my view is that it is pretty rubbish all round and that neither party has remotely prepared the ground for the ju jitsu move that each is attempting. They will both be widely disbelieved.
Isn't your ideal party manifesto one with nothing in it?
What we should have had in the Tory manifesto is a pledge to build a lot more affordable cheap private sector homes on the open market that two wage earners on the minimum wage can afford.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
There are social house builders out there. Its maybe just a case of ramping up. The pickle we are in is not really to do with the selling off of what was social housing, but the fact that more people want properties. There are more of us, and family dynamics are different.
It is kind of irritating, that Brown, and this government lost an opportunity for some good genuine keynsianism following the crash. The area of the economy most on its knees was house building.
If you are going to piss away tens of billions of pounds, then you could have done far worse than use it to build a few hundred thousand low cost houses. No serious politician with a chance of holding political power wants local authorities running housing. They are a nightmare.
But i feel for those who are stuck renting, and are doing so within the private sector. It isnt just the more expensive rents, its the security of tenure. There is little to no security for a private tenant. If the landlord wants you out, after the minimum term he only needs to give thirty days notice.
In social housing you cant be evicted unless you break the tenancy agreement.
The problem is land supply with ready planning permission to build. Yes, developers play games with land banks and waiting for prices to rise sometimes but much of that is a feature of a constrained market.
Free up and liberalise land where it's needed and they'd soon compete with each other to build and sell as quickly as they could.
Exactly. Make housebuilding easy, and the free market will take care of the rest.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
In London, the piddly sum could be £50k or even more which is £50k more than they had before.
Where ? Put down a deposit to buy a property since they now have the money to do so.
So, they uproot and move their families etc many many miles from all they have ever known to get something considerably cheaper (funnily enough, that doesn't seem to work with the bedroom tax ) and actually get to fully own their own houses?
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
I would imagine the Government will have the opportunity to shape the rules afresh. Right to buy came with conditions. Such as, if you sold it within a certain period you had to pay back the amount, or if the person died within that timeframe it had to be returned.
Maybe the government will want to keep it simple, dont know, but they could put some interesting conditions on the RTB sale. Such as: - the house will be ineligible for housing benefit applications for a set period. - the house will not have the exemption of capital gains tax if sold within a certain period. - If used as a buy to let within a certain period, the housing association have the right to compulsory purchase at sale price.
I don't remember such conditions last time.
In any case, only houses will be sold. I remember many flat buyers life was destroyed after structural faults were found in high rise blocks after they had bought the flat.
That was an issue with how local authorities managed flats. They had no sinking fund, work was carried out as needed. When people took out the right to buy, the council remained the freeholder and thus the management company. In many cases no mechanism for a sinking fund to cover repairs over the medium to long term was put in places, leaving many with huge unexpected bills. All part of been a home owner.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Remember during the energy chat when we were being told how terrible it is when governments interfere in markets by setting prices artificially low in a populist manner?
Remember the thinking span of a right wing Tory. Energy freeze - bad proposed by Labour; interferes with market.
RTB discount - good proposed by Conservative; interferes with market. Gets vote for Tories, though I think the impact this time would be minimal.
I also think that the Tories have brought out all these old "wheezes" unlike 2010 is because they were reasonably sure of winning. This time they are definitely not.
Would it be legal for someone reasonably wealthy to enter into a back-to-back contract with a Housing Association tenant who is eligible to buy a 30% discounted property but has no money even to pay a deposit ?
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Remember during the energy chat when we were being told how terrible it is when governments interfere in markets by setting prices artificially low in a populist manner?
Remember the thinking span of a right wing Tory. Energy freeze - bad proposed by Labour; interferes with market.
RTB discount - good proposed by Conservative; interferes with market. Gets vote for Tories, though I think the impact this time would be minimal.
I also think that the Tories have brought out all these old "wheezes" unlike 2010 is because they were reasonably sure of winning. This time they are definitely not.
So you are admitting that the energy freeze was a bad idea?
Comments
This is just a taste of what Labour's racist policies will do to this country:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249579/Ali-Dizaei-How-Met-bosses-limply-played-shamelessly-played-race-card--.html
A new low for a party which claims to be "progressive".
1. Build more properties and remove concepts such as "40% affordable/social housing" - it undermines the financial ability of build sites and we end up with less built.
2. Let builders build what the market wants. Only have minimum standards on size and energy efficiency.
3. End the daft FSA rules on "affordability". Make it easier for people with 30%+ of the equity to get a mortgage whatever their age or circumstances. Ending mortgages for the main home for 55+ year olds is madness. It is easier to get a BTL as a 55+ yr old than on their main property.
But how to you get better education when the system can be loaded against you.
Look, I want the same goal of people being treated equally and fairly. But how do we get there? - relying on the status quo may not be good enough. Hand on heart, do you feel ALL ethnic minorities get a fair crack of the whip? Of course, things are much better now than they were 50 years or even 20 years ago, but there is still a LONG way to go.
I could maybe understand why Africa Americans in the US were given affirmative action due to slavery but the idea that an immigrant should turn up in someone else's country and expect preferential treatment is bizarre.
Enoch prophesied this would happen.
Got to go before I really annoy/anger someone! Need to kill some Iron Horde orcs in Blackrock Foundry (Pulpstar will know what I'm talking about!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html
No need for a new tax. Just enforce current ones.
100k properties not taxed = £1bn lost tax pa.
Just needs databases linked to council tax, voting and land registry overlayed with HMRC.
It was an absolutely classic example of Labour meddling with the market having a disastrous effect. It took a quarter of a century to correct the problem. No doubt it will take a similar length of time to recover from Milibandesque market meddling, if he becomes PM.
A fascinating article on how the TV show Qunicy ME changed American law for the better:
http://culttvtimes.com/how-quincy-m-e-changed-american-law-and-saved-lives/
My laptop does get the signal though !
Imagine a manifesto for BAME communities which promised them their own law for certain types of disputes as, indeed, happened in Canada when it was Muslim women who campaigned vigorously against a proposal to allow sharia law for Muslim communities. We've already had the last Labour government seeking to impose a quasi-Islamic blasphemy law on all of us.
You do not advance the cause of equality by creating more ghettos.
A lot of people get very snooty about them but I remember the static home parks from when I was canvassing in Eastleigh and Bournemouth at previous elections. They were pleasant small homes, surprisingly nice, and the owners were very proud of them. But you could buy them for 60-95k.
We need a mixture of private sector homes for all income levels.
I'm sure Khan's despicable minorities quotas will go down well in certain quarters.
I have received a fair go from employers in this country, I'm not white. I have been asked on a number of occasions to join the Conservative party. The worst insult I have had levelled at me was to be called a "coconut" by someone of my own Indian heritage. If people are willing to integrate then this country is willing to accept us. The problem arises when people arrive who want to keep their backwards cultural ideals that are unacceptable in this country. If they are unwilling or unable to give up that cultural identity and everything it accompanies then I don't think people should be forced to accept it. No one stops me from celebrating Divali, in fact my last two employers have asked me if I wanted a day off for it up front, but by the same token I don't get upset when people wish me a "Merry Christmas" or give me Christmas cards, I just smile and wish them a Merry Christmas.
A longer answer than I had hoped to write, but the simple fact is that it is a two way relationship and I feel that Britain as a country is very, very accepting of people with different colour skin, but we as non-whites must be willing to integrate into society and that means living by British values. Equality between men and women, civility in public, doing some voluntary work and respect and tolerance of gay people and their way of life. If people are unwilling to sign up to these basic values then I don't want them to get special treatment to help them in the workplace.
No respectable social democratic party should have anything to do with such a person. There was a time when Labour would have been horrified at the idea of supporting people who held such views and yet, now, we have a number of Labour MPs - amongst them, the shadow Justice Secretary, Andy Slaughter - who are more than happy to associate themselves with extremists and those who shill for them.
If Galloway were to lose his seat, that would be a bonus.
I love watching the Netflix horror flix- they are so bad, they are good. It is one of my guilty pleasures.
Are Tories trying to get rid of their nasty image ?
In many ways, our backgrounds are similar. I was lucky enough to go to private school (maybe that's where I picked up my progressive tendencies!). We weren't rich but the Asian philosophy of 'education is everything' meant my parents sacrificed everything for me to attend private school.
Work-wise, I have done reasonably well. I can't say for sure that my skin colour has held me back but there have been times in my career where this is how I've felt (particularly early in my career).
However, many of my friends from ethnic communities haven't been so fortunate. Even though overt racism maybe a thing of the past, racism by stealth still exists. Progress has been made but still lots to do.
Having said all that, this country has given me everything. People here are generally very tolerant and understanding. It is by far the BEST country in the World and I'm proud to be British.
Basically, investor lends sum to buy. Tenant buys property with 30% discount. Sells it to the investor at 15% mark up .
In London that could be a lot of money - easy money. Is there any restriction in this construction ?
Mind you, her solution is an interesting one - boot them out.
It is kind of irritating, that Brown, and this government lost an opportunity for some good genuine keynsianism following the crash. The area of the economy most on its knees was house building.
If you are going to piss away tens of billions of pounds, then you could have done far worse than use it to build a few hundred thousand low cost houses. No serious politician with a chance of holding political power wants local authorities running housing. They are a nightmare.
But i feel for those who are stuck renting, and are doing so within the private sector. It isnt just the more expensive rents, its the security of tenure. There is little to no security for a private tenant. If the landlord wants you out, after the minimum term he only needs to give thirty days notice.
In social housing you cant be evicted unless you break the tenancy agreement.
I have no idea about the legality, because most of the houses bought by the elderly council tenants are bought at maximum discount by the family, who recoup the "gift" after the relative dies.
Not sure I would pay for a subscription. I do download many films and watch via HDMI from laptop to TV. obviously you do need compatible equipment.
Education is the key to this and making people want to integrate into society and be part of British society. Like I said, it is a two way process, non-whites can't be expected to accept unsavoury practices like FGM and honour killing as part of British life, those practices must be eradicated because they are unacceptable in Britain. On the same basis, if someone needs a day off to celebrate Divali, Eid or another religious festival employers should have some understanding.
Indians are perceived to value education very highly. Whereas, for instance, we have had recent instances of schools in areas where there is a large Muslim community of schools being told to limit and restrict education. Whether rightly or wrongly that may well have an effect on how others view people coming from such communities.
Things don't just get done to you. You also do things yourself which don't always put you in the best position. Bleating about how - as a result - you are a victim of others' behaviour, without considering your own actions or inactions is neither sensible nor grown up.
That said, the position of ethnic minorities is not as good as it should be. I just don't think that silly quotas and patronising "here's what we can do for you children" manifestos is the right way of resolving the problems that still exist.
£338 billion borrowing rather than £115!
Bullfighting, what?
I am actually interested how anonymised CVs would work (p.26)
LGBTIQ? I think the acronym is getting a little unwieldy.
I appreciate they took the effort to put 'bedroom tax' in inverted commas (p.28). Also, on p.44 they describe it in terms of Con devising it and LD backing it, but specifying Miliband taking a year to decide he didn't like it, rather than Labour. A curious distinction.
Tried to defend the baby boomers from attack rather weakly.
Allowing local authorities to keep trade local by favouring local procurement (p.48) - do EU rules allow that sort of favouritism? I don't know procurement.
p.58 Why the pretence that young people are 'growing in sophistication'. My generation was more infantilised than ever before, and that seems likely to continue.
Well done, it took until page 63 before I noticed a typo (Eenable)
Final thought - loved the tables at the back, they make me feel better no matter what they actually include or how sensible it might or might not be.
Many would not be able to exercise their right [ could not come up with a deposit for the mortgage ] but a financial construction enables them to profit from the scheme. Share the profit basically.
The last time round , I think, there was a restriction that the property could not be sold for 2 years.
I really can't see why such a tenant would not pocket, say, 15%. A £300k property would yield £45k - no small matter. Maybe, it will enable them to really put in a deposit for a mortgage !
Maybe the government will want to keep it simple, dont know, but they could put some interesting conditions on the RTB sale. Such as:
- the house will be ineligible for housing benefit applications for a set period.
- the house will not have the exemption of capital gains tax if sold within a certain period.
- If used as a buy to let within a certain period, the housing association have the right to compulsory purchase at sale price.
Shares in Magic Money Tree plc soar.
So far we've had uncosted promises on:
NHS
Trident submarines
Rail fare subsidies
Free volunteering days
Inheritance tax cuts
Income tax thresholds
Housing association homes sales
Are there any others ? Its getting hard to keep track.
And I think we need some new collective nouns. How about 'a vomit of spending commitments' or 'a verbal diarrhea of tax cut promises'.
They won't be paying a rent after the buy.
A socialist like me should not be giving such advice !
There used to be a scheme where companies would go round housing schemes offering to "buy" the house, and leave the tenant in the property paying an "interest only" mortgage.
Usually this meant that the tenant only paid the minimum amount as a "rent", leaving the "business" with a nice profit when the "owner" died.
With the removal of interest only mortgages, they would need to do it differently.
But the same sort of problem already exists via illegal subletting of council or HA properties. Once you start selling something below market price then you allow arbitrage.
Edit: worth remembering too that there's a cap on the discount. The 70% figure being bandied around is misleading in most cases.
Free up and liberalise land where it's needed and they'd soon compete with each other to build and sell as quickly as they could.
In any case, only houses will be sold. I remember many flat buyers life was destroyed after structural faults were found in high rise blocks after they had bought the flat.
http://tinyurl.com/krnguyp
How about "a handbag of promises"?
But still, they arent putting them up quickly enough to reduce demand (and why would they?).
Well done for occasionally saying 'economic plan' rather than 'long term economic plan'.
Big push on rural issues.
'Keeping ambition' for reducing immigration? They thought wording like that would slip notice?
Surprised they included the bit on FPTP. They wouldn't have to change it if they left it out, but it would give more wriggle room if they wanted.
I had no idea people lost their right to vote if they lived abroad too long. I guess I never thought about it.
p.59 'Allow police forces to retain a greater percentage of the value of assets they seize from criminals'? Sounds...potentially problematic, particular at a time of tight budgets. Seeing that John Oliver bit on Civil Asset Forfeiture has probably prejudiced my view.
I did like the strength of feeling about not imposing artificial regions on England.
All in all, a lot more focus on the dangers of Labour than Labour spent defending their past record in their manifesto, unsurprisingly.
They usually had to hold the property for between three to five years minimum.
Though of course, if their circumstances changed, this could be waived.
It funded some spectacular round the world trips in the early days. (75% discount buys a lot of beer in India)
70% does not apply in practice in London. £100k is closer to 20% best case.
I would disagree in just one regard. Sometimes, things do get done to you. One good example is anti-Black racism, which surely is a phenomenon that we cannot deny has existed all over the Western world. I wouldn't blame people for racism that they are subjected to. So I don't object to people complaining about racism even if they haven't had a blameless life. After all, everybody does stupid things. Some people burn down lots of cactuses, but they go to top schools and Oxbridge so they get by.
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/selling-your-home
It becomes immoral when there are no smaller houses to move into.
They use it to buy a large B and B in Strontian, and semi retire.
Other destinations are available, but I like that one as it is where the element strontium got it's name.
It will have a much lower impact than 1983. Many of the juicy ones have already been sold. Also, note , money has to be found for the deposit unless the kind of shenanigans I am talking about comes in. House prices multiple versus wages is now much higher.
Average social HB £92.
The private HB is taxable.
Private landlords are more intent on ensuring that properties are fully occupied, and avoid the plague of empty bedrooms that is afflicting social housing allocation.
Where ? Put down a deposit to buy a property since they now have the money to do so.
There is no feeling in life that you and your partner get when you pick up the keys to the very first home you own. Nothing.
However, I think things are more complex now. We just aren't building anywhere near enough homes. That's my only objection.
Make housebuilding easy, and the free market will take care of the rest.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Terrible, isn't it?
.
RTB discount - good proposed by Conservative; interferes with market. Gets vote for Tories, though I think the impact this time would be minimal.
I also think that the Tories have brought out all these old "wheezes" unlike 2010 is because they were reasonably sure of winning. This time they are definitely not.