@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)
All parties always say that they are going to pay something through tackling tax avoidance.
It's about as meaningful a promise as someone buying clothes too small for them and saying that they'll fit into them after their diet.
If you give up one source of real money you have to find another source of real money at the same time not pretend that you will in time do some unspecified things which will mean that some people somewhere some time might have to pay something more.
where is the loss of that current tax money going to recovered from? Mansion Tax? Bankers Bonus Tax?
and the mythical getting money from tax dodging....because it is just so easy to do that.
Are there any stats on promises parties have made about things being funded by getting money from tax dodgers, closing loopholes and so on, and how much was actually raised by doing so? As regardless of who says it I get very suspicious when plans rely on such things.
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.
Why on earth wouldn't it be. Daft the Conservatives haven't done this already, both the right thing to do and politically smart.
@PickardJE: Nicola Sturgeon: "I suspect Ed Miliband will change his tune once the votes are cast."
No sh it Sherlock
You see, if we had a PR system they could all grow up and, instead of holding out for the mirage of a majority, start their negotiations now (or months ago)...
Some systems would permit them to join their lists to maximize their seats, thereby presenting coalitions to the voters.
Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.
Fantasy figures.
On what land? The reality is that there aren't enough skilled tradesmen or building materials available to construct these numbers anyway, never mind the transport, power, water and sewerage infrastructure.
Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.
I thought all the parties have already promised 200k per year.
Indeed I think someone (LDs?) said 300k per year.
200k * 5 = 1 million - sounds like a big number but it's nothing new.
And nobody believes these promises will actually happen - WHOEVER is in power.
Tories did..
1,000,000 new homes twill be built by 2020, including starter and affordable homes, new homes on brownfield land and homes built from the extensions of the Help to Buy schemes
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.
You're only half right which is why you fail to see the problem
The Supply is fixed (total stock rent and bought). The Demand is set external to the market (job demand and community costs) and is also effectively fixed.
You are also correct that in terms of solely the market to buy property, prices rise because buy to let owners compete with owner occupiers.
But what you miss is that the demand in the rental sector INCREASES because people who would be owner occupiers lose out to buy to let landlords and then add to the number of people competing for rented property increasing the price of rents.
There is the core problem with buy to let - it increases the cost of owner-occupation AND increases the cost of rental.
You spend ages on this and other political website and know the polling differences between the parties as well as anyone. How much longer are the Tories going to keep up this denial? Even without yougov EICIPM. in 2010 The Tories had a 7 point lead and still didnt get a majority. What do you really think is going to happen?
1 milllion new homes by 2020 is 200,000 homes p.a. which is the same as what the Lib Dems are promising and somewhat less, I understand, than what the Tories have promised and, also. less than the amount of net migration every year.
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.
HS1 at least lets you get on or off at Ebbsfleet or Stratford.
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).
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
We've been advised by our Electoral Returning Officer that agents are explicitly forbidden from trying to peek at the crosses. I've always been a bit sceptical about it anyway - can anyone really reliably see through the papers? Nonetheless, the volume will be interesting. My guess is that around 15-20% of the vote in typical marginals has now been cast.
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
foxinsoxuk said: » show previous quotes 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.
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
It seems it is more like they are sat their with the test paper still mostly empty and now they are cribbing from other classmates and answers from an exam paper from 50 years ago.
Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.
Fantasy figures.
On what land? The reality is that there aren't enough skilled tradesmen or building materials available to construct these numbers anyway, never mind the transport, power, water and sewerage infrastructure.
This is the problem with Tory thinking. Too short terminst. People can be trained, transport can be planned and I imagine the number of housing starts would start low and ramp up towards the end of parliament.
Housing has been the cinderella issue in the last 5 or 6 elections. Really at the forefront in this one though - for all Parties.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 1 min1 minute ago Either Labour don't know how the housing market works - which is unforgivable - or they do know but don't care, which is even worse
foxinsoxuk said: » show previous quotes 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.
@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? @londonstatto: @JohnRentoul "populist" means 'popular but wrong", doesn't it?
BH4BB? Or is it BS4BV? Also how are FTBs who are in the EC excluded? Or not?
Alternatively, while not overconfident, they're not taking the public voting for them for granted. Sounds pretty sensible. Some of the things being thrown out sound pretty good, at least on the first glance, which is all most of us will have of them.
I thought they could get an idea on where the cross is only if their candidate was the top or bottom of the list. If your candidate is in the middle, I can't see understanding if the cross is on the third or first name with just one look.
Given that the guess agents can make is at best a bit vague, in marginals it would be difficult to have an idea other than it's close. I guess postal votes opening are maybe more useful in safe seats to check if you are well ahead as expected.
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
We've been advised by our Electoral Returning Officer that agents are explicitly forbidden from trying to peek at the crosses. I've always been a bit sceptical about it anyway - can anyone really reliably see through the papers? Nonetheless, the volume will be interesting. My guess is that around 15-20% of the vote in typical marginals has now been cast.
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
Rentoul getting screechier the closer Ed gets to Downing Street.
Poor John really overinvested in Cameron's abilities.
Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.
Fantasy figures.
On what land? The reality is that there aren't enough skilled tradesmen or building materials available to construct these numbers anyway, never mind the transport, power, water and sewerage infrastructure.
This is the problem with Tory thinking. Too short terminst. People can be trained, transport can be planned and I imagine the number of housing starts would start low and ramp up towards the end of parliament.
Housing has been the cinderella issue in the last 5 or 6 elections. Really at the forefront in this one though - for all Parties.
These last 2 ideas from Labour, the 1m new houses and rent caps are such good ideas that they were essential pillars of the Labour manifesto.
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.
You're only half right which is why you fail to see the problem
The Supply is fixed (total stock rent and bought). The Demand is set external to the market (job demand and community costs) and is also effectively fixed.
You are also correct that in terms of solely the market to buy property, prices rise because buy to let owners compete with owner occupiers.
But what you miss is that the demand in the rental sector INCREASES because people who would be owner occupiers lose out to buy to let landlords and then add to the number of people competing for rented property increasing the price of rents.
There is the core problem with buy to let - it increases the cost of owner-occupation AND increases the cost of rental.
I'm not big on maths but this makes no sense. A group of people is forced out of the buying market, let's say 200. The 200 properties they would have bought go up for rent. That's 200 people for 200 extra rental properties. You would have to dramatically increase your numbers of disaffected buyers over and above their out of reach homes for your theory to be correct.
All LAB promises are paid for so far unlike the £30bn black hole party..
So lets see where the funding comes from when launched tomorrow
I know you're a Lab supporter but, really, the idea that their proposals are any more funded than anyone else's is for the birds.
I know you are a Tory but really you think Lab proposals are as unexplained compared to the Tories. Honestly even Angrew Neale argues not.
IFS slngled out Tories £30bn blackhole.
Perhaps you can tell us where the £12bn welfare cuts are falling or where the £8bn NHS magic money tree monies are coming from.
I am not a Tory. As I have said on this forum before various times.
And if you read my comment carefully you will see that I said that I thought all parties' proposals seem to me to be unfunded.
The mansion tax, for instance, has been promised twice: for the NHS and before them to pay for the 10p starter tax rate. Since you can't spend the money twice, one of those policies must be unfunded or no longer going to happen.
The bonus tax has been promised more times than anyone can remember.
Tax avoidance is one of those vague phrases which is never attached to any particular figure. It is not serious budgeting to point to something vague like that and then claim that something has been properly funded.
See, for example, the amount recovered from Switzerland after the recent agreement in relation to bank accounts held there by UK citizens. The figure for the amount actually received was considerably less than the amount for which Osborne had budgeted. And he had a specific agreement to point to.
So I'm afraid that I do think that Labour's promises are unfunded and that, if they go through with them, they will have to raise tax at much higher levels and from many more people than they are claiming. If you vote Labour you - presumably - believe that the spending is worth it and are happy to have the necessary increased taxation to pay for it. And that is a valid point of view.
But Labour are not being honest about explaining to the electorate that all the things they want to do will have to be paid for - and cannot be paid for just by a few small groups of unpopular people. A lot of Labour voters are going to have to put their hands into their own pockets to pay for the policies they apparently favour.
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
Rentoul getting screechier the closer Ed gets to Downing Street.
He's right though. All of these policies benefit the middle class, often at the indirect expense of the poor. Those who have a house they want to sell can jack up the price a bit. Those who want to buy rather than rent will find more houses are for sale rather than for rent. Graduates get subsidised by non-graduates.
foxinsoxuk said: » show previous quotes 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.
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.
Well, not yet at least.
(Don't tell Cheryl Gillian)
There will be an interchange station built to link HS2 and East-West Rail.
It will serve construction traffic during the building process.
It will then be closed down before the lines open to passengers.
Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.
Fantasy figures.
On what land? The reality is that there aren't enough skilled tradesmen or building materials available to construct these numbers anyway, never mind the transport, power, water and sewerage infrastructure.
This is the problem with Tory thinking. Too short terminst. People can be trained, transport can be planned and I imagine the number of housing starts would start low and ramp up towards the end of parliament.
Housing has been the cinderella issue in the last 5 or 6 elections. Really at the forefront in this one though - for all Parties.
It's all nonsense.
Is HMG going to train and employ tens of thousands of bricklayers and chippies? Will the State, reopen and refurbish the many semi derelict 'mothballed' brickworks and cement plants across the UK that will be required to fuel this housing boom?
1 milllion new homes by 2020 is 200,000 homes p.a. which is the same as what the Lib Dems are promising and somewhat less, I understand, than what the Tories have promised and, also. less than the amount of net migration every year.
Still, it sounds impressive.
I'll start taking such claims seriously when a party guarantees 400k a year, written in blood, and torches most planning regulation to allow it to happen. Until then it's just hot air. All the main parties are hopeless on the housing issue.
It won't of course happen but the figures will as usual be cooked, it will be that prudence stuff all over again, when Brown's figures didn't add up the goal posts were moved to fit.
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
Rentoul getting screechier the closer Ed gets to Downing Street.
He's right though. All of these policies benefit the middle class, often at the indirect expense of the poor. Those who have a house they want to sell can jack up the price a bit. Those who want to buy rather than rent will find more houses are for sale rather than for rent. Graduates get subsidised by non-graduates.
However ill thought out anyone thinks Ed's housing proposal is only a Tory who has no understanding of housing could possibly think it's as ill considered as Cameron's housing association plan which is just insane
Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.
Fantasy figures.
On what land? The reality is that there aren't enough skilled tradesmen or building materials available to construct these numbers anyway, never mind the transport, power, water and sewerage infrastructure.
This is the problem with Tory thinking. Too short terminst. People can be trained, transport can be planned and I imagine the number of housing starts would start low and ramp up towards the end of parliament.
Housing has been the cinderella issue in the last 5 or 6 elections. Really at the forefront in this one though - for all Parties.
It's all nonsense.
Is HMG going to train and employ tens of thousands of bricklayers and chippies? Will the State, reopen and refurbish the many semi derelict 'mothballed' brickworks and cement plants across the UK that will be required to fuel this housing boom?
Plenty of brickies in Romania I expect, of course they and their families will need somewhere to live. Best not open our cement works as we will miss our carbon targets. Much better to buy it from China and ship it halfway around the world. We can export both our pollution and our jobs that way.
I wish Ed would just stick to owls. I like owls. His other policies are turning me into a kipper.
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
Rentoul getting screechier the closer Ed gets to Downing Street.
He's right though. All of these policies benefit the middle class, often at the indirect expense of the poor. Those who have a house they want to sell can jack up the price a bit. Those who want to buy rather than rent will find more houses are for sale rather than for rent. Graduates get subsidised by non-graduates.
These are not progressive policies.
I agree on SDLT.
On rent control, not so clear cut.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Good news for nice middle class would-be buyers, bad news for poorer people who would prefer to rent, who will be looking at a reduced pool of properties.
The entire Labour manifesto is being funded by a tax on bankers bonus's & a clamp down on tax avoidance.
How will Paul Daniels be able to compete ?
What happened to labours fiscal responsibility?
That was a couple of weeks ago, Then there was Health week (apparently), and now giveaways week.
The Tories had giveaway week 2 weeks ago I think, then SNP week, and are on Economy week (fiscal responsibility edition) this week I believe has been announced.
1 milllion new homes by 2020 is 200,000 homes p.a. which is the same as what the Lib Dems are promising and somewhat less, I understand, than what the Tories have promised and, also. less than the amount of net migration every year.
Still, it sounds impressive.
I'll start taking such claims seriously when a party guarantees 400k a year, written in blood, and torches most planning regulation to allow it to happen. Until then it's just hot air. All the main parties are hopeless on the housing issue.
We managed to build over 400,000 per year in the late 1950s. Macmillan was in charge of housing.
The Attlee government introduced strict planning controls in 1948.
So it probably doesn't take total abolition, just a lot more intervention in the economy than has been fashionable since 1979.
However ill thought out anyone thinks Ed's housing proposal is only a Tory who has no understanding of housing could possibly think it's as ill considered as Cameron's housing association plan which is just insane
Both main parties are just chucking stuff at us now. It's all becoming noise. Until someone turns up at my house with a gold bar, a lifetime membership to the London Library and free tickets to Covent Garden in perpetuity, I'm ignoring what they're saying.
However ill thought out anyone thinks Ed's housing proposal is only a Tory who has no understanding of housing could possibly think it's as ill considered as Cameron's housing association plan which is just insane
Both proposals are rubbish. Tories will reduce social housing stock, Labour will increase rents and reduce the stock of private rental properties, and modestly increase house prices (the last thing we need).
We need to build about 170k homes a year just to keep up with population growth, never mind catch up with where we ought to be in terms the numbers of homes we should have built over the last few decades, or deal with changing demographics. 200k is a piss in the ocean compared to the scale of the problem.
None of the parties are serious about housing, because a) it would mean building a huge number, and the associated infrastructure, and we are a nation of NIMBYs, and b) house prices would stagnate for a long time as the vast new supply suppresses rises, trashing our "investment" in property.
@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? @londonstatto: @JohnRentoul "populist" means 'popular but wrong", doesn't it?
BH4BB? Or is it BS4BV? Also how are FTBs who are in the EC excluded? Or not?
Does it matter? Are labour really interested? And second time buyers will not need to be told to go away. First time buyers will just have to pay a x%age premium for not having to pay the stamp duty. Can someone remind me of all the criticisms labour made of the guarantees and loans and other help to people to get on housing ladder provided by Osborne? What did they have to say about the revisions to the banding of stamp duty which removed the artificial price barriers?
Tories pull back - UKIP vote holds firm - panic at Labour HQ. . . . . Alternatively - same as before - nothing to see here - move on. . . . . . . Never in the field of political polling have so few been polled so often with so little results.
Jack Blanchard @Jack_Blanchard_ · Ten days to go. Labour unveil major policy, offering huge tax cut for first-time buyers. Tories unveil, well, another letter in a newspaper
Yep,looks like labour getting on the front foot again.
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Comments
Brown promises 3m new homes
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jul/12/houseprices.communities
It's about as meaningful a promise as someone buying clothes too small for them and saying that they'll fit into them after their diet.
If you give up one source of real money you have to find another source of real money at the same time not pretend that you will in time do some unspecified things which will mean that some people somewhere some time might have to pay something more.
HM treasury could lay NOM on betfair for, I dunno, £10bn?
Their internal polling must be shocking.
Indeed I think someone (LDs?) said 300k per year.
200k * 5 = 1 million - sounds like a big number but it's nothing new.
And nobody believes these promises will actually happen - WHOEVER is in power.
Some systems would permit them to join their lists to maximize their seats, thereby presenting coalitions to the voters.
On what land? The reality is that there aren't enough skilled tradesmen or building materials available to construct these numbers anyway, never mind the transport, power, water and sewerage infrastructure.
1,000,000 new homes twill be built by 2020, including starter and affordable homes, new homes on brownfield land and homes built from the extensions of the Help to Buy schemes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11533463/Conservative-manifesto-launch-live.html
And I don't believe them either.
The Supply is fixed (total stock rent and bought). The Demand is set external to the market (job demand and community costs) and is also effectively fixed.
You are also correct that in terms of solely the market to buy property, prices rise because buy to let owners compete with owner occupiers.
But what you miss is that the demand in the rental sector INCREASES because people who would be owner occupiers lose out to buy to let landlords and then add to the number of people competing for rented property increasing the price of rents.
There is the core problem with buy to let - it increases the cost of owner-occupation AND increases the cost of rental.
Even without yougov EICIPM. in 2010 The Tories had a 7 point lead and still didnt get a majority. What do you really think is going to happen?
Still, it sounds impressive.
What page is that one n Ben?
IFS slngled out Tories £30bn blackhole.
Perhaps you can tell us where the £12bn welfare cuts are falling or where the £8bn NHS magic money tree monies are coming from.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557171/Brown-promises-three-million-new-homes.html
Exc: Boost for David Cameron as 5,000 small firms back Conservatives http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11564460/Boost-for-David-Cameron-as-5000-small-firms-back-Conservatives.html …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWORTz_Izh8
@JohnRentoul: Rent controls to shrink rental sector. Tuition fee cut for richer graduates. Freeze for falling energy prices. Anti-market superficial folly
@JohnRentoul: Windfall gains for sellers of entry-level houses. Inane, stupid and, no doubt, very popular. http://t.co/PMj3WB0zad
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
» show previous quotes
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.
Nobstation!!
This is the problem with Tory thinking. Too short terminst. People can be trained, transport can be planned and I imagine the number of housing starts would start low and ramp up towards the end of parliament.
Housing has been the cinderella issue in the last 5 or 6 elections. Really at the forefront in this one though - for all Parties.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 1 min1 minute ago
Either Labour don't know how the housing market works - which is unforgivable - or they do know but don't care, which is even worse
Also how are FTBs who are in the EC excluded? Or not?
Given that the guess agents can make is at best a bit vague, in marginals it would be difficult to have an idea other than it's close. I guess postal votes opening are maybe more useful in safe seats to check if you are well ahead as expected.
Poor John really overinvested in Cameron's abilities.
'As if by magic. Lab promise funded again'
The entire Labour manifesto is being funded by a tax on bankers bonus's & a clamp down on tax avoidance.
How will Paul Daniels be able to compete ?
Dan Hodges ✔ @DPJHodges
Labour spent 5 years telling us "Only the rich can get on the housing ladder". Now they've announced "so we'll give them a tax cut".
And if you read my comment carefully you will see that I said that I thought all parties' proposals seem to me to be unfunded.
The mansion tax, for instance, has been promised twice: for the NHS and before them to pay for the 10p starter tax rate. Since you can't spend the money twice, one of those policies must be unfunded or no longer going to happen.
The bonus tax has been promised more times than anyone can remember.
Tax avoidance is one of those vague phrases which is never attached to any particular figure. It is not serious budgeting to point to something vague like that and then claim that something has been properly funded.
See, for example, the amount recovered from Switzerland after the recent agreement in relation to bank accounts held there by UK citizens. The figure for the amount actually received was considerably less than the amount for which Osborne had budgeted. And he had a specific agreement to point to.
So I'm afraid that I do think that Labour's promises are unfunded and that, if they go through with them, they will have to raise tax at much higher levels and from many more people than they are claiming. If you vote Labour you - presumably - believe that the spending is worth it and are happy to have the necessary increased taxation to pay for it. And that is a valid point of view.
But Labour are not being honest about explaining to the electorate that all the things they want to do will have to be paid for - and cannot be paid for just by a few small groups of unpopular people. A lot of Labour voters are going to have to put their hands into their own pockets to pay for the policies they apparently favour.
These are not progressive policies.
It will serve construction traffic during the building process.
It will then be closed down before the lines open to passengers.
I'm not even joking.
What happened to labours fiscal responsibility?
Is HMG going to train and employ tens of thousands of bricklayers and chippies? Will the State, reopen and refurbish the many semi derelict 'mothballed' brickworks and cement plants across the UK that will be required to fuel this housing boom?
'Still, it sounds impressive.'
It won't of course happen but the figures will as usual be cooked, it will be that prudence stuff all over again, when Brown's figures didn't add up the goal posts were moved to fit.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/26/labour-ahead-of-tories-nhs-poll-ed-miliband-health-service-policies
a) Tory lead on seats:
b) Tory lead on votes
c) Tory lead by 3.5 or more on votes
On rent control, not so clear cut.
got it.
I wish Ed would just stick to owls. I like owls. His other policies are turning me into a kipper.
Good news for nice middle class would-be buyers, bad news for poorer people who would prefer to rent, who will be looking at a reduced pool of properties.
Apparently he has a tree that he has lent Dave who is funding the entire Tory manifesto from it.
The Tories had giveaway week 2 weeks ago I think, then SNP week, and are on Economy week (fiscal responsibility edition) this week I believe has been announced.
The Attlee government introduced strict planning controls in 1948.
So it probably doesn't take total abolition, just a lot more intervention in the economy than has been fashionable since 1979.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
Sun Politics @SunPolitics · 8s 8 seconds ago
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
We need to build about 170k homes a year just to keep up with population growth, never mind catch up with where we ought to be in terms the numbers of homes we should have built over the last few decades, or deal with changing demographics. 200k is a piss in the ocean compared to the scale of the problem.
None of the parties are serious about housing, because a) it would mean building a huge number, and the associated infrastructure, and we are a nation of NIMBYs, and b) house prices would stagnate for a long time as the vast new supply suppresses rises, trashing our "investment" in property.
No mainstream party will tackle the issue.
Goodnight all.
Can someone remind me of all the criticisms labour made of the guarantees and loans and other help to people to get on housing ladder provided by Osborne? What did they have to say about the revisions to the banding of stamp duty which removed the artificial price barriers?
.
.
.
.
Alternatively - same as before - nothing to see here - move on.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Never in the field of political polling have so few been polled so often with so little results.
Ten days to go. Labour unveil major policy, offering huge tax cut for first-time buyers. Tories unveil, well, another letter in a newspaper
Yep,looks like labour getting on the front foot again.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/592419947663491072/photo/1
Come on there are enough of you
Speak to me about prices you'd like going against Ukip seats, I'm a buyer let's do business