Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Deputy PM after the election betting

123468

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533

    Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 18m 18 minutes ago
    Labour party's biggest announcement (yet) tomorrow on one million new homes and social housing

    Only 1 million....I remember when it was much grander sounding numbers..

    Brown promises 3m new homes

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jul/12/houseprices.communities
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328

    As if by magic. Lab promise funded again

    @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.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited April 2015

    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.

    There's a simple solution to that.

    HM treasury could lay NOM on betfair for, I dunno, £10bn?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    BenM said:

    Times Leader tomorrow talking about the "Tory Wobble".

    If you have to talk about it, it is happening.

    Should have happened long before now.

    Scott_P said:

    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.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 18m 18 minutes ago
    Labour party's biggest announcement (yet) tomorrow on one million new homes and social housing

    The claims are getting bigger which is a sign that they are getting desperate.

    Their internal polling must be shocking.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    BenM said:

    Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.

    Well they do have a track record. How did they do In Their 13 years of government?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Are we expecting any polling tonight? I'd assume a Labour leading YouGov given the silence on twitter, but anything else ?
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Scott_P said:

    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.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Scott_P said:

    On what page of the manifesto can we read the details?

    Which one of the manifestos?
    don't mind, which ones have it listed?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    BenM said:

    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.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited April 2015
    Floater said:

    Scott_P said:

    @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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,950

    Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 18m 18 minutes ago
    Labour party's biggest announcement (yet) tomorrow on one million new homes and social housing

    And Labour think there won't be a voter backlash against a million more houses turning the UK into a grey, unpleasant land?

  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626

    Ed is going to scrap stamp duty for first time buyers

    On what page of the manifesto can we read the details?
    Same page as Libya post war crisis.

    You are against the no stamp duty for first time buyers proposal?
    Don't know, not read the details about it yet, was wondering if i just missed it in the manifesto!
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    BenM said:

    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.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    MikeL said:

    BenM said:

    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

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11533463/Conservative-manifesto-launch-live.html

    And I don't believe them either.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    MikeL said:

    BenM said:

    Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.

    And nobody believes these promises will actually happen - WHOEVER is in power.
    Hence people just going with their gut about which party seems best, regardless of what they are promising.
  • DennisBetsDennisBets Posts: 244
    chestnut said:

    Desperate Ed.

    Labour are losing,

    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?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    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.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    don't mind, which ones have it listed?

    Presumably it will be in tomorrow's 'housing manifesto'?
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    BenM said:

    Labour promising 1 million housing starts by 2020.

    Feck sake, did I miss that in the manifesto too?!?
    What page is that one n Ben?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    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.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 18m 18 minutes ago
    Labour party's biggest announcement (yet) tomorrow on one million new homes and social housing

    And Labour think there won't be a voter backlash against a million more houses turning the UK into a grey, unpleasant land?

    Still won't be enough to house all the immigrants Labour will let in anyway.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ed is going to scrap stamp duty for first time buyers

    What every first time buyer? Even ones buying £1 million homes?
    Front page of the FT has it

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDi3wsvWgAAFarw.jpg
    And how is this going to be paid for? Mansion tax? Bankers' bonus tax?

    Won't it just push prices up?

    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.
  • In 2007 Labour in Govt promised 300,000 houses a year ..... They failed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557171/Brown-promises-three-million-new-homes.html
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,165
    edited April 2015
    notme said:

    Boys From The Blackstuff managed to represent the evils of Thatcherism, despite it being written before she took power.

    notme said:

    The sequel was actually written before the original Blackstuff was broadcast.

    Ishmael_X said:

    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).

    notme said:

    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.

    Timeline of a backtrack.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Peter Dominiczak ‏@peterdominiczak ·
    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

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Lots of Cameron's Yeovil speech on BBC1 10pm news.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569

    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.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Cyclefree said:

    Still, it sounds impressive.

    Essential viewing for those who want to come up with an impressive sounding number...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWORTz_Izh8
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    John Rentoul sums up most of my view in two tweets:

    @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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    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.

    Nobstation!!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    antifrank said:

    John Rentoul sums up most of my view in two tweets:

    @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.

    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.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    BenM said:

    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.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    It really is prizes for everyone with Ed.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Our Dan speaks ;-)

    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

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    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.

    Nobstation!!

    Freudian slip there by Dr Fox!! :lol:
  • Scott_P said:

    @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?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    antifrank said:

    That is not an act of confident leadership.

    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.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    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.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @joncraig: Love this cartoon in Sunday Mail. Beautifully captures sweating Miliband, pouting Sturgeon & smug Etonian Cameron. http://t.co/Ugxl1xd3ov
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    edited April 2015
    antifrank said:

    John Rentoul sums up most of my view in two tweets:

    @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.

    Rentoul getting screechier the closer Ed gets to Downing Street.

    Poor John really overinvested in Cameron's abilities.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @bigjohnowls

    '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 ?
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    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.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,869
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    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.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    It really is prizes for everyone with Ed.

    And it just could work,interesting seeing next week polls.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: Also it's not in the manifesto. And cost would have to be fully funded... More at midnight when details released
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    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".

  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    More of the same old nonsense from Miliband, he really is going out of his way to prove that "worse than Brown" is possible.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    john_zims said:

    @bigjohnowls

    '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 ?

    You'll like it, but not a lot? :)
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    chestnut said:

    Desperate Ed.

    Labour are losing,

    Your posts don't strike me as coming from someone who is confident of that fact.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ed is going to scrap stamp duty for first time buyers

    What every first time buyer? Even ones buying £1 million homes?
    Front page of the FT has it

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDi3wsvWgAAFarw.jpg


    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.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    BenM said:

    antifrank said:

    John Rentoul sums up most of my view in two tweets:

    @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.

    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.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    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.

    Nobstation!!

    Freudian slip there by Dr Fox!! :lol:
    Fat finger syndrome strikes again. Fnarr Fnarr!
  • oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455
    Pong said:

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    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.

    I'm not even joking.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    john_zims said:

    @bigjohnowls

    '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 ?


    What happened to labours fiscal responsibility?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    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?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Cylefree

    '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.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited April 2015
    OllyT said:

    chestnut said:

    Desperate Ed.

    Labour are losing,

    Your posts don't strike me as coming from someone who is confident of that fact.
    What odds you offering on:

    a) Tory lead on seats:
    b) Tory lead on votes
    c) Tory lead by 3.5 or more on votes
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    antifrank said:

    BenM said:

    antifrank said:

    John Rentoul sums up most of my view in two tweets:

    @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.

    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.
  • Flightpath1Flightpath1 Posts: 207
    My Grandson is a first time buyer. Can I get him to buy my next house for me. It sounds like it would be cheap for me to rent it back from him.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    This BBC program on the big heist is a bit s##t. I was hoping for something really interesting, but it is a bit trivial.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    My Grandson is a first time buyer. Can I get him to buy my next house for me. It sounds like it would be cheap for me to rent it back from him.

    For 3 years...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    edited April 2015
    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
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Labour Most seats just came in from 3.75 to 3.65 - suggests good YouGov for Lab.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    surbiton said:

    Floater said:
    Did you not know that there was an election on ? When did you first hear about the Housing Association stock sold on the cheap ?
    So, Labour stunts ok , tories bad?

    got it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    BenM said:

    antifrank said:

    BenM said:

    antifrank said:

    John Rentoul sums up most of my view in two tweets:

    @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.

    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    john_zims said:

    @bigjohnowls

    '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 ?

    Paul Daniels is a Tory Magician.

    Apparently he has a tree that he has lent Dave who is funding the entire Tory manifesto from it.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    john_zims said:

    @bigjohnowls

    '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 ?


    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.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    MikeL said:

    Labour Most seats just came in from 3.75 to 3.65 - suggests good YouGov for Lab.

    Last matched price is still 3.75, no movement in Next PM market. Doesn't imply much is happening. I think the market has factored in 2% Yougov leads
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    Scrapping Stamp Duty for first time buyers - both populist and helpful - vote winner!
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Roger said:

    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.



  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    MikeL said:

    Labour Most seats just came in from 3.75 to 3.65 - suggests good YouGov for Lab.

    There are no bets being matched
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    MikeL said:

    Labour Most seats just came in from 3.75 to 3.65 - suggests good YouGov for Lab.

    Last matched price is still 3.75, no movement in Next PM market. Doesn't imply much is happening. I think the market has factored in 2% Yougov leads
    3.75 is crazy - I mean with Scotland the Tories probably will win most seats, but the price is madness.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SunPolitics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
  • acf2310acf2310 Posts: 141


    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387


    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%
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    edited April 2015
    Roger said:

    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.

    No mainstream party will tackle the issue.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Another Labour lead in YOU GOV. Another day of postal votes cast. Another 24 hours of Ed getting closer to No. 10.

    Goodnight all.
  • Flightpath1Flightpath1 Posts: 207

    Scott_P said:

    @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?
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    murali_s said:

    Scrapping Stamp Duty for first time buyers - both populist and helpful - vote winner!

    How many ftb pay stamp duty now?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    SnoozeGov continues its EICIPM trend.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,950
    YouGov is dead....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    chestnut said:

    OllyT said:

    chestnut said:

    Desperate Ed.

    Labour are losing,

    Your posts don't strike me as coming from someone who is confident of that fact.
    What odds you offering on:

    a) Tory lead on seats:
    b) Tory lead on votes
    c) Tory lead by 3.5 or more on votes
    Three and a half vote lead?
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    edited April 2015
    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.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited April 2015
    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    MikeL said:

    Labour Most seats just came in from 3.75 to 3.65 - suggests good YouGov for Lab.

    YouGov have mostly been bad for Lab since August:

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/592419947663491072/photo/1
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    edited April 2015
    All these polls are like an interminable cricket match. Endless playing, lots of oohs and aahs and at the end it's still a bloody draw.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    ***Calling all UKIP doubters***

    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
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,142
    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    Labour Most seats just came in from 3.75 to 3.65 - suggests good YouGov for Lab.

    Last matched price is still 3.75, no movement in Next PM market. Doesn't imply much is happening. I think the market has factored in 2% Yougov leads
    3.75 is crazy - I mean with Scotland the Tories probably will win most seats, but the price is madness.
    Indeed, far too short. Labour most seats about as likely as Tory majority. Both should be about 9/1

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    GIN1138 said:



    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%

    No one thinks the Greens are going to really poll 5% do they ?
  • acf2310acf2310 Posts: 141
    Is there an ICM tomorrow?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Tonights YG EICIPM
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited April 2015
    Given that Lab has led by 2 in the last three YouGovs, Con would probably have taken that.
  • 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.
This discussion has been closed.