"Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases."
How does it reduce the cost of renting when the renters could otherwise have bought?
That doesn't look like a man lacking in enthusiasm and determination to me.
He has got his shirt sleeves up and he isn't wearing a tie. This man is serious!
Well yes. But I don't think I have ever seen him so fired up. Backs against the wall time, that is when Cameron usually gets going. 11 days of that could make a difference.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 1m1 minute ago #Conservatives and #Labour fine-detail in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) since August. Lab lead 0.6%
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
No its not you're showing your ignorance of economics and even basic logic.
Increased buy to lets increase the proportion of homes available to let versus the proportion of homes available to buy.
Without landlords, more property would be owned or just available to buy.
Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases.
Pardon me for interrumpting, but if the number of homes available to buy falls, doesn't the demand for homes to rent also increase, not just the supply? Or are those people who would otherwise be buying living in tents somewhere?
But people who want to buy are still buying.
In my experience, they are most certainly not. I can't count the number of 30something Londoners I know who would like to own a home, who are renting, and who expect to be doing so either forever, or until their parents die, depending on their background.
We stopped building motorways to relieve congestion because we worked out that it just encouraged more road usage.
Correlation is not causation.
The exact same expansion in car ownership has been seen in every country relative to incomes regardless of the level of road construction. This myth seriously hampers the development of the UK.
Car ownership does not necessarily equate to car usage. I hate the M6 stretch through Staffordshire and Cheshire but I'm not sure building a new motorway between the M6 and M1 would help the UK. What is worth doing is fixing pinch points like the Catthorpe Interchange.
Incidentally, car ownership in London fell between 2001 and 2011. I wanted to write something in my method of travel to work publication that London was 'post car' - but that wasn't sanctioned! Clearly the integrated public transport system makes not having a car more realistic, but I did wonder if the cost of housing (rents and mortgages) was forcing people to have to give up a car or a second car.
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
Utter nonsense from you. There are more and more rental homes coming onto the market. Private renting has increased in each of the past two decades. Less than two weeks to the election date and Labour suddenly discover a problem with 'rip off rents'. This after 5 years in opposition and 13 in govt (where its own policies brought about the increase in investment in rental properties). A significant proportion of private landlords are honest to goodness plain ordinary people. Its housing association chiefs who live high on the hog.
HA chiefs on whopping 6 figure salaries. Just like the charity fat cats, handing out pennies and food to the poor. Disgraceful, and hypocritical isn't it?
"Well yes. But I don't think I have ever seen him so fired up. Backs against the wall time, that is when Cameron usually gets going. 11 days of that could make a difference."
If only he didn't look so effete or sound so phony
With the UKIP VI improving from a decent base in the last week, Clacton thought of as in the bag and the positive polls in South Thanet & Thurrock, I cant believe that over 3.5 seats is odds against
Add to that the fact that UKIP lead in Rochester, Castle Point, South Basildon and Boston on LA raw data, it seems incredible.. I would advise a big bet at bigger than even money
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
Boys From The Blackstuff managed to represent the evils of Thatcherism, despite it being written before she took power.
That is a huge problem. Every graudates first choice is London job and if they don't get it they somehow feel they have failed.
I somehow doubt that is the case in Germany, where you have Berlin, Frankfuhrt, etc each famed for different industries.
Indeed and this is the core of the problem.
Economic illiterates above glibly claim it's just about supply and demand without any deeper understanding of how this works. The Demand for housing is not set by the price, it is set by the employment opportunities and the price of commuting and in both of those areas the UK has badly screwed up.
The rents problem is purely a London problem. And it's been allowed to develop because central government has refused to do anything about the over-centralised nature of the UK's focus on London. It could be partially solved quite easily by moving every central government function out of London.
It can also be solved in the short term by drastic reductions in commuting costs into London, shifting demand from London to not just the suburbs but the more distant but commutable towns surrounding London would have an immediate impact on the demand and significantly drop rent costs in central London and it's suburbs while having a less sharp impact on the towns further out.
However, the LibLabConKip won't do this. Their entire economic strategy and their predominant Growth mechanism is based on the fantasy of every inflating house prices. They have no compulsion to change this model until it breaks and that could be many years away.
Until then, voting for LibLabConKip you will just get more of the same.
America built Washington D.C.; it didn't mean New York diminished, and the same is true of Brasilia and Canberra.
The kids don't want to live in Southend or Rochester even with 50p train tickets.
All talk of rent, house prices, demand supply, is utter nonsense if its not factoring in immigration. We have here a classic case of economic diarrhoea.
Yes, a hell of a lot of the renters in London are immigrants. Eject them and watch people's property-pensions and REITs go bye-bye. London goes back to its position of the 70s, as a city being slowly euthanised by anti-development industrial policy.
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
Nabavi had a "brain fade". Tories are going through this sort of behaviour now.
Rents are flying up 10% a year minimum. And with an ever increasing supply rents are going up no matter what.
Sorry IOS, this is simply balls.
ONS figures show national rents rising at less than CPI for more than a decade now, never mind RPI. The only region is that anywhere near CPI is London.
Therefore Ed Milibands rent cap proposals are a simple political appendix, that will achieve nothing for tenants.
As for banning letting agent fees, that was done in Scotland in 2012, in the face of warnings that visible fees up front would now become invisible levies on long term rents, because work done has to be paid for and the only money coming in is the rent from the tenant.
Scotland now has the greatest rent increases outside London and the South-East.
Miliband will repeat the cockup.
Labour does not have a clue on this.
We learnt this from the disastrous 2004 Housing Act, which introduced landlord registration schemes which by some bureaucratic miracle cost about 1000% more in England than Scotland. At least Scotland got that bit more right.
It may get a few votes from gullibkes who believe the landlord spankers, but it will not help tenants.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 9s10 seconds ago #Labour leads in ELBOW split into YouGov polls, and non-YouGov, since August. YG recently more favourable to Labour
Serious question...at last GE, somebody ran a live chat room on GE night, rather than overpowering PB.com. Loads of info was posted and fun was had by all.
Is anybody willing to run one again this time? If somebody really wants to go to town, may I suggest a twitch stream. I presume OGH will be otherwise engaged, but perhaps somebody with all the data (that the MSM wont have) at their fingertips, would be really interesting.
Last time, we were getting accurate info about results before BBC or Sky.
"Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases."
How does it reduce the cost of renting when the renters could otherwise have bought?
A new BTL property increases the supply of homes on the rental market by 1 (so that does increase supply which would lead to a slight fall in prices if demand remained constant).... However it also increases demand for rental houses by 1 (from the person who failed to buy the house he was outbid on)..
so in theory the market remains in equilibrium. If only the new renter was happy with his lot...
As I said before the only way to solve this is to build. And build and build anywhere in London or close to...
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
No its not you're showing your ignorance of economics and even basic logic.
Increased buy to lets increase the proportion of homes available to let versus the proportion of homes available to buy.
Without landlords, more property would be owned or just available to buy.
Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases.
Pardon me for interrumpting, but if the number of homes available to buy falls, doesn't the demand for homes to rent also increase, not just the supply? Or are those people who would otherwise be buying living in tents somewhere?
But people who want to buy are still buying.
In my experience, they are most certainly not. I can't count the number of 30something Londoners I know who would like to own a home, who are renting, and who expect to be doing so either forever, or until their parents die, depending on their background.
It's funny. They could buy in many parts of South or East London quite cheaply, never mind the home counties and points beyond. But I'm guessing that's not really kosher for the people we're talking about. In which case, we're talking about status competition for one of the most desirable assets in the world, a prime London residential property.
"Well yes. But I don't think I have ever seen him so fired up. Backs against the wall time, that is when Cameron usually gets going. 11 days of that could make a difference."
If only he didn't look so effete or sound so phony
He looked and sounded fine and sincere to me. Even if one does find him effete and phony, that speech (limited in its impact, if any at all, it will be) sounded markedly different to how he has sounded to date in the campaign. Some people will always think he sounds phony, but others do not always think that, and seeing more of what he sounded like today might help. I doubt it, but it might.
After all, a lot of people thought Ed looked and sounded terrible, but he proved them wrong in the debates with his Mr Super Reasonable tone.
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
Utter nonsense from you. There are more and more rental homes coming onto the market. Private renting has increased in each of the past two decades. Less than two weeks to the election date and Labour suddenly discover a problem with 'rip off rents'. This after 5 years in opposition and 13 in govt (where its own policies brought about the increase in investment in rental properties). A significant proportion of private landlords are honest to goodness plain ordinary people. Its housing association chiefs who live high on the hog.
HA chiefs on whopping 6 figure salaries. Just like the charity fat cats, handing out pennies and food to the poor. Disgraceful, and hypocritical isn't it?
The pay of HA Chiefs is a joke. They have a ongoing and permanent demand for their product. They have to demonstrate no skill. Yet they earn six figures. Most of the modern HAs were created under LSVT under the previous labour government . Another legacy.
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
The previous account is a gloss.
There have been bouts of rent control after the war, in the 50s-60s, rent freezes in the time of high inflation in the 1970s, and consolidation of it all around 1977 on.
All of it made investment extraordinarily difficult.
Thatcher culled the sacred cow in 1988.
We still have ideological dinosaurs who want to return to an period they never lived through.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 9s10 seconds ago #Labour leads in ELBOW split into YouGov polls, and non-YouGov, since August. YG recently more favourable to Labour
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
No its not you're showing your ignorance of economics and even basic logic.
Increased buy to lets increase the proportion of homes available to let versus the proportion of homes available to buy.
Without landlords, more property would be owned or just available to buy.
Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases.
Pardon me for interrumpting, but if the number of homes available to buy falls, doesn't the demand for homes to rent also increase, not just the supply? Or are those people who would otherwise be buying living in tents somewhere?
But people who want to buy are still buying.
In my experience, they are most certainly not. I can't count the number of 30something Londoners I know who would like to own a home, who are renting, and who expect to be doing so either forever, or until their parents die, depending on their background.
Yeah, but who gives a flying pluck about London? Seriously though, you can't extrapolate from London to the rest of the UK.
That is a huge problem. Every graudates first choice is London job and if they don't get it they somehow feel they have failed.
I somehow doubt that is the case in Germany, where you have Berlin, Frankfuhrt, etc each famed for different industries.
Indeed and this is the core of the problem.
...
The rents problem is purely a London problem. And it's been allowed to develop because central government has refused to do anything about the over-centralised nature of the UK's focus on London. It could be partially solved quite easily by moving every central government function out of London.
blah blah blah etc
...
We have seen govt departments and agencies moved out of London. We have had decades of regional policy. We continue to have regional policy and we see the tories looking to extend regional autonomy in the north of England.
London has always been a large part of our economy and will always be. That's why it is there. History and economics and geography. The same reasons are why Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol are what and where they are.
Serious question...at last GE, somebody ran a live chat room on GE night, rather than overpowering PB.com. Loads of info was posted and fun was had by all.
Is anybody willing to run one again this time? If somebody really wants to go to town, may I suggest a twitch stream. I presume OGH will be otherwise engaged, but perhaps somebody with all the data (that the MSM wont have) at their fingertips, would be really interesting.
Last time, we were getting accurate info about results before BBC or Sky.
Was a good thing last time. I'll look into hosting options.
Serious question...at last GE, somebody ran a live chat room on GE night, rather than overpowering PB.com. Loads of info was posted and fun was had by all.
Is anybody willing to run one again this time? If somebody really wants to go to town, may I suggest a twitch stream. I presume OGH will be otherwise engaged, but perhaps somebody with all the data (that the MSM wont have) at their fingertips, would be really interesting.
Last time, we were getting accurate info about results before BBC or Sky.
Touch wood, but Mike and Robert have spent a lot of time and money boosting the PB servers.
We coped with record traffic on indyref day and night.
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
Boys From The Blackstuff managed to represent the evils of Thatcherism, despite it being written before she took power.
Serious question...at last GE, somebody ran a live chat room on GE night, rather than overpowering PB.com. Loads of info was posted and fun was had by all.
Is anybody willing to run one again this time? If somebody really wants to go to town, may I suggest a twitch stream. I presume OGH will be otherwise engaged, but perhaps somebody with all the data (that the MSM wont have) at their fingertips, would be really interesting.
Last time, we were getting accurate info about results before BBC or Sky.
Somebody had a legacy IRC channel that was still live. It was a good thing.
Serious question...at last GE, somebody ran a live chat room on GE night, rather than overpowering PB.com. Loads of info was posted and fun was had by all.
Is anybody willing to run one again this time? If somebody really wants to go to town, may I suggest a twitch stream. I presume OGH will be otherwise engaged, but perhaps somebody with all the data (that the MSM wont have) at their fingertips, would be really interesting.
Last time, we were getting accurate info about results before BBC or Sky.
Touch wood, but Mike and Robert have spent a lot of time and money boosting the PB servers.
We coped with record traffic on indyref day and night.
The chat room seemed to work really well last time. Perhaps a load a chat plugin?
The only problem with having to post / refresh the thread, is it loses ability to really get a flow going and interactions between posters.
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
No its not you're showing your ignorance of economics and even basic logic.
Increased buy to lets increase the proportion of homes available to let versus the proportion of homes available to buy.
Without landlords, more property would be owned or just available to buy.
Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases.
Pardon me for interrumpting, but if the number of homes available to buy falls, doesn't the demand for homes to rent also increase, not just the supply? Or are those people who would otherwise be buying living in tents somewhere?
But people who want to buy are still buying.
In my experience, they are most certainly not. I can't count the number of 30something Londoners I know who would like to own a home, who are renting, and who expect to be doing so either forever, or until their parents die, depending on their background.
It's funny. They could buy in many parts of South or East London quite cheaply, never mind the home counties and points beyond. But I'm guessing that's not really kosher for the people we're talking about. In which case, we're talking about status competition for one of the most desirable assets in the world, a prime London residential property.
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
I am very torn about Milliband's rent control proposals.
My parents' flat was subject to rent controls, something for which we were eternally grateful when the new landlord (a total bastard) tried to force us out through neglect so bad that at one point the local council declared the property unfit for human habitation and ordered him to do the necessary repairs. And my very first professional legal experience was working for the North Kensington Law Centre helping tenants in some pretty scummy properties in Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove before they became chi chi. (Google the Claneicarde Gardens fire to get an idea of the sort of stuff that happened.)
So I have little love for poor landlords.
Milliband has rightly identified a key issue - housing.
One issue though is that rent controls are great for those tenants who benefit from them but not so great if the supply of good quality rental property dries up.
What we are going to do about increasing housing supply is the big unanswered question.
Clanricarde was a slum, because the tenants were paying such low rents that it wasn't economically worthwhile for the landlords to spent any money on the properties without making massive losses. Protected tenants were only paying a few quid for flats even in the early 90's
I know for a fact that your last sentence simply is not true. The rent tribunals could and did increase rents. What they did not do was charge the sort of silly rents that were being seen then and now and which has caused a real problem in places like London, as MaxPB has pointed out.
Clanricarde was a property where the landlord had so little care for the people he stuffed in there that he did not take even basic fire precautions so that people died as a result of his negligence.
I'm of the view that if you are going to become a landlord there are certain minimum standards of decency you should comply with.
When were you at North Ken?
First half of the 1980's.
I suspect many of the 'rogue' landlords and Winklers I knew around there a decade later were the same faces. But I won't name them here!
Serious question...at last GE, somebody ran a live chat room on GE night, rather than overpowering PB.com. Loads of info was posted and fun was had by all.
Is anybody willing to run one again this time? If somebody really wants to go to town, may I suggest a twitch stream. I presume OGH will be otherwise engaged, but perhaps somebody with all the data (that the MSM wont have) at their fingertips, would be really interesting.
Last time, we were getting accurate info about results before BBC or Sky.
Touch wood, but Mike and Robert have spent a lot of time and money boosting the PB servers.
We coped with record traffic on indyref day and night.
The chat room seemed to work really well last time. Perhaps a load a chat plugin?
The only problem with having to post / refresh the thread, is it loses ability to really get a flow going and interactions between posters.
@PickardJE: Nicola Sturgeon: "I suspect Ed Miliband will change his tune once the votes are cast."
No sh it Sherlock
My daughter has been at the Sherlock convention in London since Friday. Had an absolutely fabulous time meeting the cast and writers. Just a brilliant event.
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
Boys From The Blackstuff managed to represent the evils of Thatcherism, despite it being written before she took power.
No it wasn't.
Just agree with him,he is re-writing history. Blackstuff was written pre-Thatcher, Boys from the Blackstuff was written when Thatcher was PM. But hey, don't let them there facts get in the way.
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Very pedantic, I know, but an annual season ticket from Chelmsford is £3,728. Still a lot, but you can probably save that in rent/mortgage repayments.
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Yes. On the other hand, I assume the reason why £5k can be charged for season tickets from Chelmsford is because plenty of people are happy to buy season tickets and can afford to do so. In context, Chelmsford is probably in the top two to five per cent of most desirable areas to live in across Europe.
Alun Cairns 03:38:25 Dan Jarvis 03:44:55 (PB) Timpson Edward 03:56:42 Graham Evans 05:28:30 Richard Drax 06:18:09 (debut)
Well done to them all, red, blue, green, yellow, orange, purple or sky blue pink with yellow dots on.
All very worthy but surprising that MP's in marginal seats are taking a weekend out at the stage of the campaign to run a marathon
I don't know campaigning, but without a couple of days off even at this stage to refresh and clear your head, I would have thought it would take a superhuman to maintain and even increase their level of activity and focus going into the final stretch. Perhaps a marathon was their way of doing that.
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Very pedantic, I know, but an annual season ticket from Chelmsford is £3,728. Still a lot, but you can probably save that in rent/mortgage repayments.
I was adding £1k for the London travelcard if your job isn't in Liverpool Street and you don't want to die on a bicycle.
This was basically the thinking of post-war economic planning. Just ban people from creating jobs in popular, well-skilled areas, and they'll inevitably create them in unpopular, unskilled areas. And both parties bought into this? Daft.
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Yes. On the other hand, I assume the reason why £5k can be charged for season tickets from Chelmsford is because plenty of people are happy to buy season tickets and can afford to do so. In context, Chelmsford is probably in the top two to five per cent of most desirable areas to live in across Europe.
It might have something to do with the number of people who work in London but can't afford to live there.
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
Boys From The Blackstuff managed to represent the evils of Thatcherism, despite it being written before she took power.
No it wasn't.
Just agree with him,he is re-writing history. Blackstuff was written pre-Thatcher, Boys from the Blackstuff was written when Thatcher was PM. But hey, don't let them there facts get in the way.
Not necessarily.
"The television play The Black Stuff was originally written by Bleasdale for BBC1's Play for Today anthology series in 1978. After filming however, the play languished untransmitted until being screened on 2 January 1980.[2] It concerned a group of Liverpudlian tarmac layers (hence slang: 'the black stuff') on a job near Middlesbrough.
The acclaim that The Black Stuff received on its eventual transmission led to the commissioning of the sequel serial, of which Bleasdale had already written a considerable amount.". (My emphasis).
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Very pedantic, I know, but an annual season ticket from Chelmsford is £3,728. Still a lot, but you can probably save that in rent/mortgage repayments.
I was adding £1k for the London travelcard if your job isn't in Liverpool Street and you don't want to die on a bicycle.
Fair point. I'm very lucky in that I work near Covent Garden and commute into Waterloo which leaves me just a 15 minute walk.
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
No its not you're showing your ignorance of economics and even basic logic.
Increased buy to lets increase the proportion of homes available to let versus the proportion of homes available to buy.
Without landlords, more property would be owned or just available to buy.
Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases.
Pardon me for interrumpting, but if the number of homes available to buy falls, doesn't the demand for homes to rent also increase, not just the supply? Or are those people who would otherwise be buying living in tents somewhere?
But people who want to buy are still buying.
In my experience, they are most certainly not. I can't count the number of 30something Londoners I know who would like to own a home, who are renting, and who expect to be doing so either forever, or until their parents die, depending on their background.
It's funny. They could buy in many parts of South or East London quite cheaply, never mind the home counties and points beyond. But I'm guessing that's not really kosher for the people we're talking about. In which case, we're talking about status competition for one of the most desirable assets in the world, a prime London residential property.
But for many, Commuting is what the little people do. Thousands of 'trendy' 20 and 30 somethings feel it's their right to live in Zones 1 to 3 near hip restaurants and bars.
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Very pedantic, I know, but an annual season ticket from Chelmsford is £3,728. Still a lot, but you can probably save that in rent/mortgage repayments.
I was adding £1k for the London travelcard if your job isn't in Liverpool Street and you don't want to die on a bicycle.
Fair point. I'm very lucky in that I work near Covent Garden and commute into Waterloo which leaves me just a 15 minute walk.
Yep. That's one reason why the HS trains from Kent in St Pancreas haven't taken off. Many people assumed commuters would take the faster train but it isn't faster if you work near London Bridge, Victoria, Charing Cross or Cannon Street all of which are served during Rush Hour...
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Yes. On the other hand, I assume the reason why £5k can be charged for season tickets from Chelmsford is because plenty of people are happy to buy season tickets and can afford to do so. In context, Chelmsford is probably in the top two to five per cent of most desirable areas to live in across Europe.
It might have something to do with the number of people who work in London but can't afford to live there.
That's supply. Like in every significant city, there are more jobs than accommodations in the centre, particularly for well-paid people. Let's say there are a million commuters from outside London every day; they can't all fit even if one were able to fix a low price.
London also has the best weather in the UK (bar, perhaps, a few sunny spots in Sussex or Hampshire).
It really is unfair, but there it is.
Thought you might have said Cornwall,right off to watch poldark ;-)
Egads, no. Cornwall has a nice climate by British standards (not exactly hard) but the Cornish have a special word for fine, light drizzle ("mizzle"), for a very good reason.
Tho it is noticeable how they've managed to film the entire Poldark series on the three cloudless days of the year, west of the Tamar.
Point of order, Mr T: my family used the word 'mizzle' to mean fine rain, and we're Derbyshire folk. So I checked in my book on the dialect of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and its in. So it'snot just Cornish.
Apparently it's from the Low German 'miseln' and Dutch 'miezelen'.
Oh, and Poldark was much better than I was expecting it to be.
Edit: although I've always loved the word 'grockle', which I've always been told is Cornish.
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
Boys From The Blackstuff managed to represent the evils of Thatcherism, despite it being written before she took power.
No it wasn't.
Just agree with him,he is re-writing history. Blackstuff was written pre-Thatcher, Boys from the Blackstuff was written when Thatcher was PM. But hey, don't let them there facts get in the way.
The sequel was actually written before the original Blackstuff was broadcast. All the key points of the story in the tv series come from the original screenplay.
It only became an indictment of the evils of Thatcherism with hindsight.
Its not very clear, but I think it says upto £300k.
Edit:- Have seen a high res version number, it says "starter homes" worth up to £300k. What is a starter home? Is that just FT filling or is that going to be on particular houses will count?
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
No its not you're showing your ignorance of economics and even basic logic.
Increased buy to lets increase the proportion of homes available to let versus the proportion of homes available to buy.
Without landlords, more property would be owned or just available to buy.
Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases.
Pardon me for interrumpting, but if the number of homes available to buy falls, doesn't the demand for homes to rent also increase, not just the supply? Or are those people who would otherwise be buying living in tents somewhere?
But people who want to buy are still buying.
In my experience, they are most certainly not. I can't count the number of 30something Londoners I know who would like to own a home, who are renting, and who expect to be doing so either forever, or until their parents die, depending on their background.
It's funny. They could buy in many parts of South or East London quite cheaply, never mind the home counties and points beyond. But I'm guessing that's not really kosher for the people we're talking about. In which case, we're talking about status competition for one of the most desirable assets in the world, a prime London residential property.
But for many, Commuting is what the little people do. Thousands of 'trendy' 20 and 30 somethings feel it's their right to live in Zones 1 to 3 near hip restaurants and bars.
I don't blame them, any more than I blame the oldies with two to three bedrooms each! Clearly, one way of life is fit for one demographic and the other for the other. But we need realism. Even if you'd want to, living in central London won't be affordable for almost any person in family-formation stage.
Some councils have the first postal votes opening sessions tomorrow. They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
Isn' the answer to intimidation not to give into it, rather than the opposite?
The answer is not to destroy the market in the first place.
Labour's rent controls of the 1970s were the worst single thing that any government has done in the 50 years I've been watching politics. An utter, unmitigated, no-holds-barred disaster, with no upside whatsoever. They effectively wiped out the rental market, and as a result many properties were left empty. They created Rachmanism.
Labour in the 1970s caused something to happen in the 1950s? No wonder Timelords vote Labour.
Boys From The Blackstuff managed to represent the evils of Thatcherism, despite it being written before she took power.
No it wasn't.
Just agree with him,he is re-writing history. Blackstuff was written pre-Thatcher, Boys from the Blackstuff was written when Thatcher was PM. But hey, don't let them there facts get in the way.
Not necessarily.
"The television play The Black Stuff was originally written by Bleasdale for BBC1's Play for Today anthology series in 1978. After filming however, the play languished untransmitted until being screened on 2 January 1980.[2] It concerned a group of Liverpudlian tarmac layers (hence slang: 'the black stuff') on a job near Middlesbrough.
The acclaim that The Black Stuff received on its eventual transmission led to the commissioning of the sequel serial, of which Bleasdale had already written a considerable amount.". (My emphasis).
Thank you.
If Sunny Jim had won the election, the screen play would have still been broadcast, and the series commissioned, with identical themes. They just wouldnt have been able to blame it on Thatcher.
Some councils have the first postal votes opening sessions tomorrow. They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Very pedantic, I know, but an annual season ticket from Chelmsford is £3,728. Still a lot, but you can probably save that in rent/mortgage repayments.
I was adding £1k for the London travelcard if your job isn't in Liverpool Street and you don't want to die on a bicycle.
Fair point. I'm very lucky in that I work near Covent Garden and commute into Waterloo which leaves me just a 15 minute walk.
Yep. That's one reason why the HS trains from Kent in St Pancreas haven't taken off. Many people assumed commuters would take the faster train but it isn't faster if you work near London Bridge, Victoria, Charing Cross or Cannon Street all of which are served during Rush Hour...
And it is the flaw in HS2. If there is nobstation between Central London and Central Birmingham then no one can get on or off. We need more commuter line capacity than long distance.
Some councils have the first postal votes opening sessions tomorrow. They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
Do you know when final electorate numbers will be published? (Preferably by seat)
Some councils have the first postal votes opening sessions tomorrow. They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
Some councils have the first postal votes opening sessions tomorrow. They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
Some councils have the first postal votes opening sessions tomorrow. They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
Game on!
Our Council started last week. Electoral Commission have banned telling on them. Spoilsports.
Some councils have the first postal votes opening sessions tomorrow. They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
I'm talking about people who can't afford to buy in places like Walthamstow, Kilburn, and Streatham, not people who have their hearts set on Kensington and Hampstead. There was briefly a trend for them decamping to Brockley, but looking at Rightmove the cheapest 2-bed semi is £450k so I think I now realise why that fashion ended.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Very pedantic, I know, but an annual season ticket from Chelmsford is £3,728. Still a lot, but you can probably save that in rent/mortgage repayments.
I was adding £1k for the London travelcard if your job isn't in Liverpool Street and you don't want to die on a bicycle.
Fair point. I'm very lucky in that I work near Covent Garden and commute into Waterloo which leaves me just a 15 minute walk.
Yep. That's one reason why the HS trains from Kent in St Pancreas haven't taken off. Many people assumed commuters would take the faster train but it isn't faster if you work near London Bridge, Victoria, Charing Cross or Cannon Street all of which are served during Rush Hour...
And it is the flaw in HS2. If there is nobstation between Central London and Central Birmingham then no one can get on or off. We need more commuter line capacity than long distance.
where is the loss of that current tax money going to recovered from? Mansion Tax? Bankers Bonus Tax?
@skynewsniall: Scheme said to cost £225m each of the three years it'll be available. Paid for through tackling landlord tax avoidance, increasing tax (1/2)
@skynewsniall: paid by companies buying property on behalf of investors, raising stamp on buyers from outside EU, cutting LL wear and tear tax relief (2/2)
where is the loss of that current tax money going to recovered from? Mansion Tax? Bankers Bonus Tax?
@skynewsniall: Scheme said to cost £225m each of the three years it'll be available. Paid for through tackling landlord tax avoidance, increasing tax (1/2)
@skynewsniall: paid by companies buying property on behalf of investors, raising stamp on buyers from outside EU, cutting LL wear and tear tax relief (2/2)
"raising stamp on buyers from outside EU" - going to be intersting to see if that is legal.
and the mythical getting money from tax dodging....because it is just so easy to do that.
@skynewsniall: Scheme said to cost £225m each of the three years it'll be available. Paid for through tackling landlord tax avoidance, increasing tax (1/2)
@skynewsniall: paid by companies buying property on behalf of investors, raising stamp on buyers from outside EU, cutting LL wear and tear tax relief (2/2)
@skynewsniall: Ed also plans to give FTBs first dibs on new property in their area, and tackle foreign buyers buying up property before locals have chance
@jonwalker121: I find it hard to imagine how giving first-time-buyers first call on homes works. Will sellers have to tell second-time-buyers to go away?
For all parties it's daft asking how Mickey Mouse things will be paid for.
This is £225m per year.
On Friday it was announced that the deficit for 2014/15 (and thus the "starting point" going forward) was £3bn lower than had been forecast just 4 weeks earlier.
@skynewsniall: Ed also plans to give FTBs first dibs on new property in their area, and tackle foreign buyers buying up property before locals have chance
@jonwalker121: I find it hard to imagine how giving first-time-buyers first call on homes works. Will sellers have to tell second-time-buyers to go away?
@skynewsniall: Scheme said to cost £225m each of the three years it'll be available. Paid for through tackling landlord tax avoidance, increasing tax (1/2)
@skynewsniall: paid by companies buying property on behalf of investors, raising stamp on buyers from outside EU, cutting LL wear and tear tax relief (2/2)
Nah, this is crap compared to the Tory unfunded unicorns. How did Lord A describe it the other day. Labour being fiscally responsible and having everything funded, Tory Party is spraying unfunded things around like confettii. The world has gone mad.
A unicorn for every garden and an owl for every boy.
The parties are just being silly now. They know they are never going to have to deliver as no one will have a majority.
Completely, one hundred per cent correct. Vote for the party you trust best in coalition negotiations doesn't have the same ring as a slogan, but it has the merit of truth!
The 'rampant buy-to-let market' has increased supply and reduced rents.
Do we really have to explain the most basic facts of economics again and again?
Utter nonsense. The supply is fixed in any given time period.
No its not you're showing your ignorance of economics and even basic logic.
Increased buy to lets increase the proportion of homes available to let versus the proportion of homes available to buy.
Without landlords, more property would be owned or just available to buy.
Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases.
Pardon me for interrumpting, but if the number of homes available to buy falls, doesn't the demand for homes to rent also increase, not just the supply? Or are those people who would otherwise be buying living in tents somewhere?
But people who want to buy are still buying.
In my experience, they are most certainly not. I can't count the number of 30something Londoners I know who would like to own a home, who are renting, and who expect to be doing so either forever, or until their parents die, depending on their background.
It's funny. They could buy in many parts of South or East London quite cheaply, never mind the home counties and points beyond. But I'm guessing that's not really kosher for the people we're talking about. In which case, we're talking about status competition for one of the most desirable assets in the world, a prime London residential property.
But for many, Commuting is what the little people do. Thousands of 'trendy' 20 and 30 somethings feel it's their right to live in Zones 1 to 3 near hip restaurants and bars.
How dare young people expect to have the same standard of living as their parents. Living in central London should be a right reserved for the global super rich, and God forbid they should pay any taxes during their brief sojourn here, or asylum seekers like Jihadi John who should also be subsidised by the English middle classes.
Comments
"Increased numbers of buy to let landlords increase the cost of buying homes and reduce the costs of renting homes. Its basic supply and demand, the supply of homes available to let increases and the demand for homes to buy increases."
How does it reduce the cost of renting when the renters could otherwise have bought?
Incidentally, car ownership in London fell between 2001 and 2011. I wanted to write something in my method of travel to work publication that London was 'post car' - but that wasn't sanctioned! Clearly the integrated public transport system makes not having a car more realistic, but I did wonder if the cost of housing (rents and mortgages) was forcing people to have to give up a car or a second car.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/method-of-travel-to-work-in-england-and-wales/art-method-of-travel-to-work.html#tab-Commuting-by-car-or-van
"Well yes. But I don't think I have ever seen him so fired up. Backs against the wall time, that is when Cameron usually gets going. 11 days of that could make a difference."
If only he didn't look so effete or sound so phony
Like Little Lord Fauntleroy doing the Haka
It's too much for the young ones.
The people who did it in the 70's and 80s got a free ride, and the young people are being asked to pay for it.
Add to that the fact that UKIP lead in Rochester, Castle Point, South Basildon and Boston on LA raw data, it seems incredible.. I would advise a big bet at bigger than even money
ONS figures show national rents rising at less than CPI for more than a decade now, never mind RPI. The only region is that anywhere near CPI is London.
Therefore Ed Milibands rent cap proposals are a simple political appendix, that will achieve nothing for tenants.
As for banning letting agent fees, that was done in Scotland in 2012, in the face of warnings that visible fees up front would now become invisible levies on long term rents, because work done has to be paid for and the only money coming in is the rent from the tenant.
Scotland now has the greatest rent increases outside London and the South-East.
Miliband will repeat the cockup.
Labour does not have a clue on this.
We learnt this from the disastrous 2004 Housing Act, which introduced landlord registration schemes which by some bureaucratic miracle cost about 1000% more in England than Scotland. At least Scotland got that bit more right.
It may get a few votes from gullibkes who believe the landlord spankers, but it will not help tenants.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 9s10 seconds ago
#Labour leads in ELBOW split into YouGov polls, and non-YouGov, since August. YG recently more favourable to Labour
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/592419947663491072
Is anybody willing to run one again this time? If somebody really wants to go to town, may I suggest a twitch stream. I presume OGH will be otherwise engaged, but perhaps somebody with all the data (that the MSM wont have) at their fingertips, would be really interesting.
Last time, we were getting accurate info about results before BBC or Sky.
However it also increases demand for rental houses by 1 (from the person who failed to buy the house he was outbid on)..
so in theory the market remains in equilibrium. If only the new renter was happy with his lot...
As I said before the only way to solve this is to build. And build and build anywhere in London or close to...
After all, a lot of people thought Ed looked and sounded terrible, but he proved them wrong in the debates with his Mr Super Reasonable tone.
There have been bouts of rent control after the war, in the 50s-60s, rent freezes in the time of high inflation in the 1970s, and consolidation of it all around 1977 on.
All of it made investment extraordinarily difficult.
Thatcher culled the sacred cow in 1988.
We still have ideological dinosaurs who want to return to an period they never lived through.
Seriously though, you can't extrapolate from London to the rest of the UK.
My point was explicitly about the London housing market. Specifically Zone 1 - 3 flats
We have had decades of regional policy. We continue to have regional policy and we see the tories looking to extend regional autonomy in the north of England.
London has always been a large part of our economy and will always be. That's why it is there. History and economics and geography. The same reasons are why Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol are what and where they are.
We coped with record traffic on indyref day and night.
The only problem with having to post / refresh the thread, is it loses ability to really get a flow going and interactions between posters.
Yes, they could shave a fair amount off the price by going to the less pleasant bits of the home counties, granted. Maybe even half the price if they went to somewhere like Chelmsford. I will grant you that a large part of the reason for not doing so is simply that they don't, in fact, want to live in Chelmsford, but the £10k annual cost of season tickets for a couple might also be a factor, might it not?
Ed really is the master of making something out of nothing.
"By 1957 the council had explicitly accepted that it was obliged "to restrain the growth of population and employment potential within the city."
http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/booming-birmingham-and-need-for.html
He knows he's losing, doesn't he?
"The television play The Black Stuff was originally written by Bleasdale for BBC1's Play for Today anthology series in 1978. After filming however, the play languished untransmitted until being screened on 2 January 1980.[2] It concerned a group of Liverpudlian tarmac layers (hence slang: 'the black stuff') on a job near Middlesbrough.
The acclaim that The Black Stuff received on its eventual transmission led to the commissioning of the sequel serial, of which Bleasdale had already written a considerable amount.". (My emphasis).
Very satisfying.
Apparently it's from the Low German 'miseln' and Dutch 'miezelen'.
Oh, and Poldark was much better than I was expecting it to be.
Edit: although I've always loved the word 'grockle', which I've always been told is Cornish.
It only became an indictment of the evils of Thatcherism with hindsight.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDi3wsvWgAAFarw.jpg
Edit:- Have seen a high res version number, it says "starter homes" worth up to £300k. What is a starter home? Is that just FT filling or is that going to be on particular houses will count?
They are open face down....but agents can try and spy where the cross is....Kerry McCarthy will be kept away from twitter
If Sunny Jim had won the election, the screen play would have still been broadcast, and the series commissioned, with identical themes. They just wouldnt have been able to blame it on Thatcher.
Won't it just push prices up?
You are against the no stamp duty for first time buyers proposal?
Take any & all anecdotes with a, umm;
http://tinyurl.com/me8a44g
Also, it is the deposit which is the really really big issue for many.
(Don't tell Cheryl Gillian)
@skynewsniall: paid by companies buying property on behalf of investors, raising stamp on buyers from outside EU, cutting LL wear and tear tax relief (2/2)
So lets see where the funding comes from when launched tomorrow
If you have to talk about it, it is happening.
and the mythical getting money from tax dodging....because it is just so easy to do that.
@skynewsniall: Scheme said to cost £225m each of the three years it'll be available. Paid for through tackling landlord tax avoidance, increasing tax (1/2)
@skynewsniall: paid by companies buying property on behalf of investors, raising stamp on buyers from outside EU, cutting LL wear and tear tax relief (2/2)
@jonwalker121: I find it hard to imagine how giving first-time-buyers first call on homes works. Will sellers have to tell second-time-buyers to go away?
@londonstatto: @JohnRentoul "populist" means 'popular but wrong", doesn't it?
I have some beans if you are interested?
This is £225m per year.
On Friday it was announced that the deficit for 2014/15 (and thus the "starting point" going forward) was £3bn lower than had been forecast just 4 weeks earlier.
The whole thing is a total nonsense.
The parties are just being silly now. They know they are never going to have to deliver as no one will have a majority.
Labour are losing,
Labour party's biggest announcement (yet) tomorrow on one million new homes and social housing