The ComRes topline figures don't tell us very much we don't know - the Tory honeymoon is continuing (14-point lead) and the Labour contest isn't helping the party because voters don't like squabbling parties. As Sir Norfolk observes, the figures for "If X were leader would you..." don't tell us much, both because people aren't good at predicting how they'll feel about politics in the future and because the Mail has cheerfully excluded all don't knows to show that everyone would get a similarly worse result, which is perhaps not quite what we'd expect. If one assumes the DK's split 50-50, then Labour ends up with just over 30% with any of the leaders. You might get the (certainly false) impression that the voters don't really care who the leader is.
But there's an interesting detail in the report. If Corbyn is chosen, the Greens are heavily damaged (36% switch to Labour) and interestingly some switch from the other parties too (8% of Tories, 9% of UKIP, 18% of LibDems). But 25% of 2010 Labour voters no longer say they'll vote Labour. Some of these will be in the don't know camp, others like SO here seem to be irretrievably lost. Corbyn's immediate job if he wins will be to bring back some of those, e.g. by a broad-ranging shadow cabinet. The Tories' immediate job will be to try to harden up the defections and possibly give some thought to why they'd be losing more votes to Corbyn than Miliband managed.
The 60% anti Tories are going to find an outlet somewhere though I haven't the faintst idea where.
For some, it might just be in realising that all that Lefty clap-trap about baby-eating Tories has stopped them from considering that, actually, the Tories are a party wedded to the democratic system, who exist to try and make life better for the greatest number of us, based on pragmatic One Nation Conservatism. The next five years might see that 60% slipping into minority. (It's already down to 58% in today's COMRES poll!)
Change is going to require something better than the Tories offer. Whilst ever parties keep electing the Corbyn's and the Farron's of this world, and so long as the Tories do indeed rule for the One Nation and don't press the big red button marked A REALLY DUMB THING TO DO, it is hard to see the electorate voting for change. Now, more than ever, people will be asking "Labour - why would you take the risk?"
As Alanbrooke said: " One Nation Conservatism.
how's that going in Scotland ?"
Obviously, not very well. It has not occurred to many people south of the border that when the voters in Scotland realised that the Conservative and Unionist party were seemingly not interested in the country, then the Tories were not worth putting a cross on a ballot paper for.
Labour didn't understand and as far as the leadership was concerned, it was business as usual. The party paid the price. Membership declined.
The romance of the SNP attracted many people of all political beliefs with the story of how everything would be better by being Independent. Extreme right to extreme left with all the flavours in between. All with different visions or dreams of what Scotland would be like after a "Yes" vote.
Agree, or disagree with them, they have a dream and they are following it still.
Something will always try and fill a vacuum, sometimes it will be something you don't expect or want.
Tories are not where they are on merit, they are just the best of a bad bunch at present , the least crappy. Any semblance of a decent opposition and these bozo's will be out on their ears.
Malcolmg: Tories... They are just the best.
Someone should save that truncated quote. Not representative of the actual opinion obviously, but funny.
So Comres for the Mail today has all 4 polling abysmally but of the 4 Corbyn and Burnham do best taking Labour to 22% then Cooper on 21% with Kendall worst taking Labour to just 18%.
Labour may be better off seeing Corbyn win then dumping him for Alan Johnson in 3 years time
More from the ComRes poll:
Do any of the candidates have what is takes to be Prime Minister? Yes/No/DK
"Some 57 per cent of Labour voters said they would stick with the party if he becomes leader and 36 per cent of Greens would switch to him. But 26 per cent of Labour voters said they would abandon the party. And he would pick up only 8 per cent of Tory votes, 9 per cent of Ukip votes and 18 per cent of Lib Dem votes." (Mail)
However the Tories would likely make a net gain from the 26% leaving Labour the only party likely to make a net loss to Corbyn are the Greens on that poll and perhaps the SNP too
Electing Corbyn would be bad for the tories if it means that Labour is led at the next GE by somebody outside the current 4 candidates.
Very little damages a party 'for a generation'. Corbyn will not, if he quits before 2020. He is extremely likely to do so---he has neither the ambition nor the stomach for the long haul.
As the article says, however, Lab with Jezza has jumped the shark.
A party capable of electing him, for whatever reason and with whatever greater end in mind, is simply not to be trusted.
If the Cons elected Redwood or Jacob or even Boris the same charge could be made against them.
You are right. As soon as Corbyn wins, if he does, the hard left will move to transform their online takeover of Labour by a physical takeover at constituency level. Even if Corbyn's reign is short the succession will be poisoned by the ideology of the hard left. I see no easy way back.
Ganesh is right that Corbyn spells disaster for Labour. But the Tories do need to do something more than just celebrate. If they take the opportunity to move right they will create a vacuum in the centre ground and ultimately find themselves squeezed by some emerging group which will occupy that ground. The Tories should react to Corbyn by consolidating and fortifying the centre ground. For this reason Osborne sometimes worries me.
Why? He has caused more problems for Labour than they have ever caused for him. His latest budget busily started grabbing ground to his left to more than compensate for the little he did to the right.
One reason he will be very grateful for FPTP, because in any PR system the Tories are a the point where they will start bleeding a load of votes to the centre right. A number of Conservatives of my acquaintance are starting to look at their membership cards in the same way as a student that didn't revise well looks at their exam paper the next morning, not quite sure if they are sitting in the correct subject.
They might well ask what is Conservative about a raising the minimum wage to a level even Labour didn't dare ? What is Conservative about taking millions of people out of income tax so they have no stake in caring how the nations money is spent ? What is Conservative about having fewer people owning their homes now than when Thatcher left power ? What is Conservative about taxing a business on its turnover rather than it's profit ?
The Conservative Party of Thatcher would have seemed an alien place to Baldwin's, and Baldwin's to Balfour.
Likewise, Thatcher would have been bemused by Cameron's Conservative Party.
Labour's current woes show that one of the Conservative party's great strengths is that it can slowly evolve as society changes. Labour tried a big-bang approach to change with New Labour, but it seems they're bouncing back to their old stomping grounds to fight battles that have long been won by their opponents.
I think I used an analogy the other day that the Labour Party were 115 years old and senile, whilst the Conservative Party were undead shape-shifters.
It is interesting that any Tory voters would switch to lab if Corbyn wins. Like LD-UKIp switchers (though that's probably protest votes?) or that Green cllr who switched to Tory.
It is interesting that any Tory voters would switch to lab if Corbyn wins. Like LD-UKIp switchers (though that's probably protest votes?) or that Green cllr who switched to Tory.
People like Ganesh are naïve.How Corbyn is perceived as labour leader will be influenced by how he is portrayed in the tv media.The TV media and the education system have a soft spot for authentic left win figures and a knee jerk dislike. of tories.Corbyn and his group will learn quickly how to play to that bias.Underneath that the new hard left entrists will take control of local labour parties and councils.When Britain next falls into recession there will be huge disenchantment with the tories who have been playing`gesture politics` with the economy
Mr. Jessop, that was my thought also. I don't believe one in 11 Conservatives will look at an anti-NATO republican unilaterialist socialist and think "Hmm, sounds good."
I hope you are right. The cuts in tax credits and other budget retrenchment measures have not caused Osborne any problems because they haven't been enacted yet. The reduction in disposable income which awaits significant numnbers from next April is a ticking time bomb, possibly with a poll tax type effect. Osborne may be riding high now but he needs to be careful otherwise he could find himself written out of the next PM stakes.
All very true - but I wonder if he cares very much. As I have said before, and as several people including @david_herdson have noted, he has a great many other disadvantages in the next PM stakes - voice, manner, background, public image, respected rather than liked, etc. He wouldn't be the rank outsider to be PM, but I certainly don't think he should be favourite. Therefore, he is free to take what actions he likes as Chancellor even if they are unpopular (for that matter, even if they are wrong).
A more serious point would be if it caused a great backlash against the party as a whole. But - would it? Tax credits have never been very popular and contrary to Labour propaganda, are not terribly effective either (partly, of course, because they are run by HMRC which thanks to chronic mismanagement in the last 15 years since its merger is grossly understaffed and hopelessly inefficient). They are definitely a sledgehammer trying to perform microsurgery.
The key question is whether the drop in income for those on tax credits will be compensated for by those who are able to do so (which is again of course not all of them) working more hours. That's something we won't know about until it happens.
Finally, one last thought - how many people in receipt of tax credits will have voted Conservative at the last election anyway? I'm guessing they were mostly self-employed people on lowish incomes, who tend to be the ones who get the worst deal in terms of incompetence from tax credits anyway, due to fluctuations in their income. Would such people vote for another party with Corbyn in the offing? Almost certainly not.
Therefore, Osborne could in theory get away with doing nothing. My view is he would be wrong to do so - he needs to be proactively helping such people so tax credits are not needed anyway, and so there is more purchasing power at the lower end of the economy - but it's not hard to see how he could do it.
>The couple with the single BTL property are about to be forced to sell that property due to swingeing tax rises which is going to go down very badly, and even worse when they see their largely competitors continue almost unaffected, and possibly buying their property off them.
There are other issues too. There have been massive regulation increases of PRS regulation in the last few years - since the 2004 Act. LLs are now immigration policemen too.
I'd say the main victims of this will be leveraged portfolio landlords - say people in BTL for 15-20 years with 20+ properties.
I already know a number who will be selling up because of the tax on imputed not real income, and going into tax exile because of the CGT hit.
That, and the published aims of landlording being a business not a dabble, run counter to then impact which will be to deprofessionalise parts of the industry.
>I wouldn't necessarily say I'm against BTL. It's just that BTL is part of the problem with housing in this country. There's a difference between the couple who have one BTL property and the companies that hold dozens.
Not sure. We still have one of the smallest provate rental sectors in Europe. It is predominently a supply problem.
It is interesting that any Tory voters would switch to lab if Corbyn wins. Like LD-UKIp switchers (though that's probably protest votes?) or that Green cllr who switched to Tory.
Do we really trust such polling?
Granted, but I'm sure there is still some switching like that, even if it seems to make no sense. People choose how to cast their vote in odd ways sometimes.
If one assumes the DK's split 50-50, then Labour ends up with just over 30% with any of the leaders. You might get the (certainly false) impression that the voters don't really care who the leader is.
Nick - the key lesson of the election was that in polling such people don't break to Labour at all. Either they vote Conservative or they don't vote at all. The very few who do break to Labour are more than offset by those who say they will vote Labour and don't vote at all.
Corbyn will kill your party stone dead. Indeed, 22% wouldn't be a bad result under his leadership. If you cannot see that I feel sorry for you.
Just an aside, but I was watching the news and saw a $500,000 reward by Ashley Madison regarding those who stole their data. The news chap said that was 'nearly a quarter of a million pounds' which surprised me enormously [don't go abroad much but books tend to be priced in dollars, especially if self-publishing].
Far from the shock $2 price for a pound, it's still around $1.58 or so, as it has been for ages.
I do wonder about news chaps sometimes. Not as bad as the oaf Bilton, whose migrant crisis piece included the intellectual insight that the Mediterranean was a large body of water, but still.
It is interesting that any Tory voters would switch to lab if Corbyn wins. Like LD-UKIp switchers (though that's probably protest votes?) or that Green cllr who switched to Tory.
Do we really trust such polling?
Granted, but I'm sure there is still some switching like that, even if it seems to make no sense. People choose how to cast their vote in odd ways sometimes.
Weren't there indications (and anecdotal evidence) of Lib Dem to UKIP switchers before the GE? That seems equally odd on the face of it.
On topic, the only point of Ganesh's I'd dispute is the notion that Corbyn could stand down after one day and lasting damage would be done. It wouldn't - though of course he won't. The damage will be incremental, as floating voters experience each new lunacy. It will take two years to undo each one of Corbyn's leadership.
To be honest I don't think he even has to be elected for lasting damage to have been done. Voters impression of Labour now is that their reaction to a defeat isn't to regroup but to wander off the reservation. Unless Corbyn comes a miserable fourth and heaps further coals on the heads of the polling industry then the Conservatives will have fun with the fact that Labour are taking Corbyn seriously all the way to polling day.
It is interesting that any Tory voters would switch to lab if Corbyn wins. Like LD-UKIp switchers (though that's probably protest votes?) or that Green cllr who switched to Tory.
Do we really trust such polling?
Granted, but I'm sure there is still some switching like that, even if it seems to make no sense. People choose how to cast their vote in odd ways sometimes.
Weren't there indications (and anecdotal evidence) of Lib Dem to UKIP switchers before the GE? That seems equally odd on the face of it.
Indigo - Good point on the BTL tax. But at least it is phased in on a long notice period. Josias should note the change as he is against BTL and this tax change will have a big impact eventually.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm against BTL. It's just that BTL is part of the problem with housing in this country. There's a difference between the couple who have one BTL property and the companies that hold dozens.
..snip..
Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem, plus the rather basic issue that we just plain don't have enough with quarter of a million new people arriving in the country every year, and the increase in family breakdowns meaning less people live in each property.
Bidding for BTL properties - especially by companies - increases the cost of houses because they can afford to outbid people, especially as mortgages are apparently becoming more BTL friendly.
On another note, a local rental agency recently went bust, with string rumours of financial mismanagement. A friend of ours has really been left in the lurch, as have his (good) tenants.
Not too surprising to me. Letting agents are at best horrible leeches sucking off tenants who have little choice but to use them.
That is people choosing poor letting agents. Good ones are around.
See my last comment.
In an industry which is being bureaucratised to death, and which is fragmented to people owning a couple of properties on the side, there is little option but to use professional agents.
Two years ago the Residential Landlords Association published a list of 100 different Acts of Parliament that affect renting. There have been several more since :-)
Even though I have been renting a small no of properties out for a couple of decades, I would not even consider running eg a student rental myself - it is just too complex, there is too much paperwork and too many little offences that can be made criminal should a Council wish.
So I employ the best professionals for that I can.
>Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem
Holiday homes are well under 1% of the housing stock. There are very few homes never lived in.
If one assumes the DK's split 50-50, then Labour ends up with just over 30% with any of the leaders. You might get the (certainly false) impression that the voters don't really care who the leader is.
Nick - the key lesson of the election was that in polling such people don't break to Labour at all. Either they vote Conservative or they don't vote at all. The very few who do break to Labour are more than offset by those who say they will vote Labour and don't vote at all.
Corbyn will kill your party stone dead. Indeed, 22% wouldn't be a bad result under his leadership. If you cannot see that I feel sorry for you.
OGH: That’s the disaster waiting for Labour in just two and a half weeks time and the surprising thing is that many in the party don’t see it.
To be honest, very few of my close friends are Socialists. That said, there are a fair number of Labourites here on PB.com whom I view as being highly intelligent, politically savvy, as well as being reasonably moderate in their outlook. I have therefore been surprised, startled even, by how many of these have professed their support for Corbyn in the leadership contest over recent weeks. It's almost as if they feel bitter and twisted by the General Election result they had expected to win and that somewhat perversely this is their way of getting back at the party's establishment who they consider let them down so badly.
. The new BLT Tax is going to be massively unpopular when people see their tax bills, and most small BLT owners (excluding some of those taking their ease in the better parts of Italy) are the sort of aspirational floating voters that the Tories really shouldn't be trying to piss off.
If one assumes the DK's split 50-50, then Labour ends up with just over 30% with any of the leaders. You might get the (certainly false) impression that the voters don't really care who the leader is.
Nick - the key lesson of the election was that in polling such people don't break to Labour at all. Either they vote Conservative or they don't vote at all. The very few who do break to Labour are more than offset by those who say they will vote Labour and don't vote at all.
Corbyn will kill your party stone dead. Indeed, 22% wouldn't be a bad result under his leadership. If you cannot see that I feel sorry for you.
Kendall got only 18% Cooper 21% Burnham also 22%
They all have the potential to attract other voters. Marxists are literally a dying breed.
Moreover, it is unlikely that Labour would descend into total chaos under their leadership. Under Corbyn, it is more or less certain. Therefore, although those numbers are bad, there would be room for improvement.
Finally, yes, they all did badly. That's a damning indictment of the lack of talent in Labour. But at the same time, Burnham or Cooper (I'm no fan) might land some blows on Cameron. Corbyn? First sign of trouble, out comes Paul Eisen.
. The new BLT Tax is going to be massively unpopular when people see their tax bills, and most small BLT owners (excluding some of those taking their ease in the better parts of Italy) are the sort of aspirational floating voters that the Tories really shouldn't be trying to piss off.
It's almost as if they feel bitter and twisted by the General Election result they had expected to win and that somewhat perversely this is their way of getting back at the party's establishment who they consider let them down so badly.
What I find interesting is that quite a lot of the Labour Party view Ed as New Labour. He's certainly a product of New Labour, but I don't think he ran a New Labour campaign.
Ganesh is right that Corbyn spells disaster for Labour. But the Tories do need to do something more than just celebrate. If they take the opportunity to move right they will create a vacuum in the centre ground and ultimately find themselves squeezed by some emerging group which will occupy that ground. The Tories should react to Corbyn by consolidating and fortifying the centre ground. For this reason Osborne sometimes worries me.
Except the 'centre ground' also includes large numbers of Labour to UKIP switchers. Those who have moved already, and those who would move with a pro-immigration, pro-Falklands sharing, pro-surrendering Northern Ireland chap in charge of Labour.
Change is going to require something better than the Tories offer. Whilst ever parties keep electing the Corbyn's and the Farron's of this world, and so long as the Tories do indeed rule for the One Nation and don't press the big red button marked A REALLY DUMB THING TO DO, it is hard to see the electorate voting for change. Now, more than ever, people will be asking "Labour - why would you take the risk?"
There have been a few signs of pretty dumb things to do already to be fair. The new BLT Tax is going to be massively unpopular when people see their tax bills, and most small BLT owners (excluding some of those taking their ease in the better parts of Italy) are the sort of aspirational floating voters that the Tories really shouldn't be trying to piss off. Many of them are connected with the trades and have used their trade connections to do a place on the side up and earn a few quid to supplement their trade income that has taken a pounding with the current immigration situation, which is the other pretty dumb thing we did, promise to bring it down (again!) when its clearly going to continue going up for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Antifrank, in my childhood I read four Sonic the Hedgehog books by Martin Adams, and really rather liked them. They included storylines regarding the fourth dimension (time) which introduced me to the grandmother paradox, transmogrification (re-organisation of matter from one object to another) and [very] basic ideas about how computer programming might be put together.
Corbyn's latest wizard wheeze is to sack the governor of the BoE if he refuses to print money. I'm astounded that the leader of the opposition thinks this is a good idea
'Sometimes things are as simple as they seem' Correct. Sometimes you just get on and do what you have to in government. You carry on doing the right thing and let others worry about it. The damage is done. How on earth can anyone trust the judgement of MPs who went out of their way to nominate him, first of all knowing him and his views and then knowing full well the way their electorate was open to manipulation, from both outside and from the Unions.
It is interesting that any Tory voters would switch to lab if Corbyn wins. Like LD-UKIp switchers (though that's probably protest votes?) or that Green cllr who switched to Tory.
Do we really trust such polling?
Granted, but I'm sure there is still some switching like that, even if it seems to make no sense. People choose how to cast their vote in odd ways sometimes.
Weren't there indications (and anecdotal evidence) of Lib Dem to UKIP switchers before the GE? That seems equally odd on the face of it.
Why the puzzle? A large chunk of LD votes pre 2015 were NOTA protest votes.
. The new BLT Tax is going to be massively unpopular when people see their tax bills, and most small BLT owners (excluding some of those taking their ease in the better parts of Italy) are the sort of aspirational floating voters that the Tories really shouldn't be trying to piss off.
Change is going to require something better than the Tories offer. Whilst ever parties keep electing the Corbyn's and the Farron's of this world, and so long as the Tories do indeed rule for the One Nation and don't press the big red button marked A REALLY DUMB THING TO DO, it is hard to see the electorate voting for change. Now, more than ever, people will be asking "Labour - why would you take the risk?"
There have been a few signs of pretty dumb things to do already to be fair. The new BLT Tax is going to be massively unpopular when people see their tax bills, and most small BLT owners (excluding some of those taking their ease in the better parts of Italy) are the sort of aspirational floating voters that the Tories really shouldn't be trying to piss off. Many of them are connected with the trades and have used their trade connections to do a place on the side up and earn a few quid to supplement their trade income that has taken a pounding with the current immigration situation, which is the other pretty dumb thing we did, promise to bring it down (again!) when its clearly going to continue going up for the foreseeable future.
Change is going to require something better than the Tories offer. Whilst ever parties keep electing the Corbyn's and the Farron's of this world, and so long as the Tories do indeed rule for the One Nation and don't press the big red button marked A REALLY DUMB THING TO DO, it is hard to see the electorate voting for change. Now, more than ever, people will be asking "Labour - why would you take the risk?"
There have been a few signs of pretty dumb things to do already to be fair. The new BLT Tax is going to be massively unpopular when people see their tax bills, and most small BLT owners (excluding some of those taking their ease in the better parts of Italy) are the sort of aspirational floating voters that the Tories really shouldn't be trying to piss off. Many of them are connected with the trades and have used their trade connections to do a place on the side up and earn a few quid to supplement their trade income that has taken a pounding with the current immigration situation, which is the other pretty dumb thing we did, promise to bring it down (again!) when its clearly going to continue going up for the foreseeable future.
This is interesting. Apparently, after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans overhauled their entire education system to convert to 'charter schools', or 'free schools' as we call them. The results a decade later have shown a dramatic success, with the poor children seeing their results improve the most.
“We tried to make urban districts better for 50 years. We tried more funding, more accountability, more pipelines of talent, more [professional development], more training, more certification rules, and on and on and on. After all of that time, and all of those cities, we still don't have a single high-performing urban district in America. Not one,” Andy Smarick, an education-policy analyst, told me. “But the very first time we try an all-charter system, the first time ever, we get dramatically better results in only a decade.”
What was most interesting is that it wasn't just 'teaching to the test'. Children also improved on tests that did not affect teacher performance, and university acceptance rates rose.
Hopefully the Gove revolution will show similar success.
I can't see any upside for Labour in electing Jezza.
They will gain enthusiasm and numbers? They will gain the shouty, obnoxious brigade who vote Labour anyway and do their best to put off any undecided. "We don't want you, you're not Labour enough."
Brilliant strategy.
After Salmond announced his resignation as First Minister, the membership of the SNP increased by 100,000. The SNP then went on to virtually wipe out Labour and the LibDem MPs in Scotland in the GE.
The Labour party has increased it's membership to 600,000, and I suspect many more will join if Corbyn wins. Er! Perhaps you might see some possibilities in the correlation between the SNP and Labour's increases in active members living a dream of change.
Or not if you are a Tory, with a declining and ageing membership?
Corbyn's latest wizard wheeze is to sack the governor of the BoE if he refuses to print money. I'm astounded that the leader of the opposition thinks this is a good idea
Pedant alert - He isn't leader of the opposition yet.
Indigo - Good point on the BTL tax. But at least it is phased in on a long notice period. Josias should note the change as he is against BTL and this tax change will have a big impact eventually.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm against BTL. It's just that BTL is part of the problem with housing in this country. There's a difference between the couple who have one BTL property and the companies that hold dozens.
..snip..
Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem, plus the rather basic issue that we just plain don't have enough with quarter of a million new people arriving in the country every year, and the increase in family breakdowns meaning less people live in each property.
Bidding for BTL properties - especially by companies - increases the cost of houses because they can afford to outbid people, especially as mortgages are apparently becoming more BTL friendly.
On another note, a local rental agency recently went bust, with string rumours of financial mismanagement. A friend of ours has really been left in the lurch, as have his (good) tenants.
I can't see any upside for Labour in electing Jezza.
They will gain enthusiasm and numbers? They will gain the shouty, obnoxious brigade who vote Labour anyway and do their best to put off any undecided. "We don't want you, you're not Labour enough."
Brilliant strategy.
There is one upside if they elect Corbyn, that they won't elect Burnham. Other than that it is hard to see anything but doom for the Labour Party in the coming years, that the leadership of the Labour Party is a choice between Burnham and Corbyn frankly is an embarrassment
I can't see any upside for Labour in electing Jezza.
They will gain enthusiasm and numbers? They will gain the shouty, obnoxious brigade who vote Labour anyway and do their best to put off any undecided. "We don't want you, you're not Labour enough."
Brilliant strategy.
After Salmond announced his resignation as First Minister, the membership of the SNP increased by 100,000. The SNP then went on to virtually wipe out Labour and the LibDem MPs in Scotland in the GE.
The Labour party has increased it's membership to 600,000, and I suspect many more will join if Corbyn wins. Er! Perhaps you might see some possibilities in the correlation between the SNP and Labour's increases in active members living a dream of change.
Or not if you are a Tory, with a declining and ageing membership?
Nah, size isn't important, it is what you do with it that counts.
The general election showed that the Tories had the superior ground game with superb micro-targetting.
Labour had more activists (including as IOS couldn't stop reminding us) 1,600 activists on election day in one seat.
But we spanked Labour back into the electoral stone age
I can't see any upside for Labour in electing Jezza.
They will gain enthusiasm and numbers? They will gain the shouty, obnoxious brigade who vote Labour anyway and do their best to put off any undecided. "We don't want you, you're not Labour enough."
Brilliant strategy.
There is one upside if they elect Corbyn, that they won't elect Burnham. Other than that it is hard to see anything but doom for the Labour Party in the coming years, that the leadership of the Labour Party is a choice between Burnham and Corbyn frankly is an embarrassment, Chukka must be pleased with his decision to stay oot of this one, in 2 or 3 years he could be the big winner from this farce.
Mr. kle4, they're still making Sonic games, which appear to be generally terrible.
Indeed. The most egregious thing I've seen is that apparently they call Robotnik 'Eggman' now, which is his name in Japan. Inexcusable - my childhood has been besmirched.
Many of us Tories under IDS went through exactly the same thought processes as Labour apologists for Corbyn: man of integrity, reconnect with the Party’s core beliefs, many individual policies are popular, he’ll grow into the job. Well, some dogs are so lame, no amount of help or wishful thing can get them over the stile and Corbyn and IDS, as leaders, come into that category. They have many good qualities and good intentions. But as leaders, as the face of their parties, as people able to command the respect and pander to the ambitions of three hundred or so egomaniacs in Parliament: be realistic.
Corbyn's latest wizard wheeze is to sack the governor of the BoE if he refuses to print money. I'm astounded that the leader of the opposition thinks this is a good idea
As I said yesterday, if Labour is elected on a manifesto that includes printing money, and then enacts the necessary legislation to enable it, it's no business of the Governor of the BoE to stand in its way. He can advise that it's a moronic policy that would bring ruin to many if its carried out consistently and on a large scale but ultimately, he is a servant of the state and has to defer to the crown in parliament.
The last paragraph is particularly worth reading in light of the header:
Corbyn, however, may well be the only one of the three outsiders who wins anything. He’s likely to be the next Labour leader. That would be a disaster.
He has almost no support among Labour members of Parliament; no experience of running anything; has called Hamas and Hezbollah “our friends” (but says he was misunderstood); forgot (before remembering) that he’s socialized with a Lebanese extremist who called 9/11 “sweet revenge” and has since been banned from Britain; wants Britain out of NATO; and has a European leftist’s de rigueur view of America as the source of the world’s problems. If he’s chosen, Labour could disintegrate. It certainly won’t win an election.
But Corbynmania shows no sign of abating. It’s a new season in politics. Anything could happen, either side of the pond.
Indigo - Good point on the BTL tax. But at least it is phased in on a long notice period. Josias should note the change as he is against BTL and this tax change will have a big impact eventually.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm against BTL. It's just that BTL is part of the problem with housing in this country. There's a difference between the couple who have one BTL property and the companies that hold dozens.
..snip..
Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem, plus the rather basic issue that we just plain don't have enough with quarter of a million new people arriving in the country every year, and the increase in family breakdowns meaning less people live in each property.
Bidding for BTL properties - especially by companies - increases the cost of houses because they can afford to outbid people, especially as mortgages are apparently becoming more BTL friendly.
On another note, a local rental agency recently went bust, with string rumours of financial mismanagement. A friend of ours has really been left in the lurch, as have his (good) tenants.
Not too surprising to me. Letting agents are at best horrible leeches sucking off tenants who have little choice but to use them.
That is people choosing poor letting agents. Good ones are around.
The good ones are horrible leeches. The bad ones verge on the criminal.
If inheritance laws enable people to pass down property without tax then there does need to be some other tax mechanism to prevent (or at least limit) the development of an unbridgable divide opening up between a property-owning class and a rental one.
Just an aside, but I was watching the news and saw a $500,000 reward by Ashley Madison regarding those who stole their data. The news chap said that was 'nearly a quarter of a million pounds' which surprised me enormously [don't go abroad much but books tend to be priced in dollars, especially if self-publishing].
Far from the shock $2 price for a pound, it's still around $1.58 or so, as it has been for ages.
I do wonder about news chaps sometimes. Not as bad as the oaf Bilton, whose migrant crisis piece included the intellectual insight that the Mediterranean was a large body of water, but still.
OGH: That’s the disaster waiting for Labour in just two and a half weeks time and the surprising thing is that many in the party don’t see it.
There are a fair number of Labourites here on PB.com whom I view as being highly intelligent, politically savvy, as well as being reasonably moderate in their outlook. I have therefore been surprised, startled even, by how many of these have professed their support for Corbyn in the leadership contest over recent weeks. It's almost as if they feel bitter and twisted by the General Election result they had expected to win and that somewhat perversely this is their way of getting back at the party's establishment who they consider let them down so badly.
If you're including me there, I don't feel bitter at all (in fact as I've hinted at a personal level I'm rather chuffed about rediscovering a free life). I've always wanted to be as left as possible (within the limits of democracy and what I feel to be fairness) without ruling out the possibility of winning. I was a Blairite as he offered a platform which I thought was reasonably progressive on balance, with an excellent chance of winning. At the moment, winning looks difficult for any of the candidates, so I've opted for a personally pleasant left-winger who attracts a lot of enthusiasm and new members. Not really more to it than that.
Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem
Holiday homes are well under 1% of the housing stock. There are very few homes never lived in.
I have an odd problem which maybe someone can advise on. I inherited a family company a while back whose main asset was a flat, which we rent out. We now want to wind up the company and are selling the flat as part of that. However, we like the tenant (a relative) and want to give him sitting tenancy protection, even though that reduces the money we get for the place substantially. The buyer, who is a friend of the tenant, has cheerfully agreed - the tenant is elderly and paying a good rent, so the buyer is fine with getting rent for now and the full value later, and the buyer has cash so doesn't need a mortgage. But of course the buyer die or might sell it on, so we want the tenant protected legally, which an informal deal might not do.
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold.
Apart from Nick the P and BJ for owls the agreed view on here is that Corbyn's election will be bad for Labour. the next question is what will happen to Labour's 2015 voters? First they should get back a whopping 1% to 2% from the Greens. In Scotland probably a wash as they will lose votes on competence and gain a similar number of socialists from the SNP. Of their 2015 voters i can see two camps that are likely to move. 1. The Progress voters who attract the headlines and just will not stomach the socialists. A few to the Conservatives, a few to the LDs but a lot may not vote at all. 2. The WWC voters. Some of these I guess will move a few % to the Conservatives but a larger % may go to UKIP because of immigration. Overall vote shares in the range of Con 40%, Lab 20%, UKIP 17% and LD 9%.
Corbyn's latest wizard wheeze is to sack the governor of the BoE if he refuses to print money. I'm astounded that the leader of the opposition thinks this is a good idea
As I said yesterday, if Labour is elected on a manifesto that includes printing money, and then enacts the necessary legislation to enable it, it's no business of the Governor of the BoE to stand in its way. He can advise that it's a moronic policy that would bring ruin to many if its carried out consistently and on a large scale but ultimately, he is a servant of the state and has to defer to the crown in parliament.
Or he could refuse to do it as unlawful and counter to the provisions of TFEU Article 123 Sure the government could disapply the European Communities Act but that might not be without a certain political cost!
OGH: That’s the disaster waiting for Labour in just two and a half weeks time and the surprising thing is that many in the party don’t see it.
There are a fair number of Labourites here on PB.com whom I view as being highly intelligent, politically savvy, as well as being reasonably moderate in their outlook. I have therefore been surprised, startled even, by how many of these have professed their support for Corbyn in the leadership contest over recent weeks. It's almost as if they feel bitter and twisted by the General Election result they had expected to win and that somewhat perversely this is their way of getting back at the party's establishment who they consider let them down so badly.
If you're including me there, ............
Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem
Holiday homes are well under 1% of the housing stock. There are very few homes never lived in.
I have an odd problem which maybe someone can advise on. I inherited a family company a while back whose main asset was a flat, which we rent out. We now want to wind up the company and are selling the flat as part of that. However, we like the tenant (a relative) and want to give him sitting tenancy protection, even though that reduces the money we get for the place substantially. The buyer, who is a friend of the tenant, has cheerfully agreed - the tenant is elderly and paying a good rent, so the buyer is fine with getting rent for now and the full value later, and the buyer has cash so doesn't need a mortgage. But of course the buyer die or might sell it on, so we want the tenant protected legally, which an informal deal might not do.
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold. NickP I can recommend a conveyancing solicitor for advice and possible work who is very familar with tenancy matters - old school 100 yr old practice specialising in a few traditional areas. Email me topcat001ATyahoo.com
>Thanks for that. Although it's hard to say that any of that is unnecessary, especially with large developments. The floods of 2013/4 show that things like SuDS (or whatever they''re calling it now) is vital to manage water.
Fair comment.
My first point for a chainsaw would be complications in Planning, and all the bodies who are consulted – some of which have clear conflicts of interests. Eg The Batmen who make their living advising on bats tend to be the same people to whom Environment have largely devolved making policy about Bats.
I suggest that the BTL changes will be a large part of de-bubbling London for a decade. All those middle level professionals will now have somewhere to buy and the starting out renters will be even worse off.
Ooop North we get 7-9% returns on the right properties (perhaps 4-5% after mortgage and other costs but zero appreciation at present) so can absorb one lot of tax increases on a deemed income equivalent to an extra 1% out of that return. In London most of the mortgaged landlords make 2-5% including mortgage so -1 to 2% after mortgage so may be under water.
Then interest rates will be going up soon. Bloodbath time.
>MattW - great piece on the reality of house planning. How did you sort out the funding for the 20% for affordable housing?
We will be selling with Outline permission. It will be a £15m project – too big for us to take on.
Another current housing problem is that mid-size developers were pithed by the recession, and the few that are left find finance very difficult.
>There is another effect that is worth mentioning. Because the cost of land and planning permission is such a high proportion of the cost of a house (70% now instead of 2% in the 1930s) builders have to save money where they can - they have to build low quality, ugly houses to make any money at all. And they know somebody out there will have to buy them.
Around our area land and getting planning would cost about 30% depending. On the project I detailed the total cost of the planning process to Outline stage is about £100k, which is the buy-in stake in the game of Planning Poker with the Planning Committee.
70% might be right for some City or Southern settings.
This is a reasonable 'typical' breakdown:
Some of those social costs have transferred straight out of the land price which would have been higher as a % 15 or 20 years ago.
People in the industry talk about the price of the land, then look up the cost of the Section 106 and simply deduct it to get the selling price.
>If inheritance laws enable people to pass down property without tax then there does need to be some other tax mechanism to prevent (or at least limit) the development of an unbridgable divide opening up between a property-owning class and a rental one.
I believe that the extra allowance is limited to the family home.
Silly idea. Osbo should have tackled the prices instead, and removed the CGT exemption completely.
Many of us Tories under IDS went through exactly the same thought processes as Labour apologists for Corbyn: man of integrity, reconnect with the Party’s core beliefs, many individual policies are popular, he’ll grow into the job. Well, some dogs are so lame, no amount of help or wishful thing can get them over the stile and Corbyn and IDS, as leaders, come into that category. They have many good qualities and good intentions. But as leaders, as the face of their parties, as people able to command the respect and pander to the ambitions of three hundred or so egomaniacs in Parliament: be realistic.
Problem is that Labour people said the same about Gordon Brown in the face of all contrary evidence and the same about Ed Miliband in the face of..... History repeating.
Electing Corbyn would be bad for the tories if it means that Labour is led at the next GE by somebody outside the current 4 candidates.
Very little damages a party 'for a generation'. Corbyn will not, if he quits before 2020. He is extremely likely to do so---he has neither the ambition nor the stomach for the long haul.
Why is he likely to step down before 2020?
He is enjoying his fame, his influence and the chance to present his passionate beliefs to a wider audience, who to his eyes, are keen to adopt his views by cheering and applauding him.
Trust you now know your BLTs from your BTLs. Tenants are not caterpillars. Mainly.
*blush*
Actually I am not in that line of business at all, although Mrs Indigo keeps bugging me about it, at least the recent changes have let me bury that idea for the moment.
Its more that I had an whole evening of getting my ear bent on the subject by a very pissed off WWC guy with a couple of modest properties who was voicing serious doubts about why he voted Tory this time, and I believe will be a sure fire kipper next time around.
Free owls for all. 90% income tax rates come back for the £100,000 range..... Unions for the self employed (er), one colour phone hansets, british leyland reborn, IMF rules....
Free owls for all. 90% income tax rates come back for the £100,000 range..... Unions for the self employed (er), one colour phone hansets, british leyland reborn, IMF rules....
I'm almost sure that Ganesh is right. And yet, there is a small possibility that somehow the general public will also get swept away with the utopian vision of a 'people's QE' spewing money into hospitals, railways and energy companies and mass taxing of the wealthy. The young in particular may suddenly rise up and actually start to vote. Ken Clarke has warned against Tory complacency.
To me, old enough to have lived through the 80s and years of Militant madness and all the rest, it seems impossible to believe.
Expecting them to all come here once they get a residence card.
They'd need a passport rather than just a residence card, I think. I wouldn't expect them all to come here, but if the rest of the EU accepts 1-1.5 million a year, I think we would certainly be seeing about 10% migrating across to the UK within a few years. That entirely uses up our net immigration target before we even get to the migration we already have.
We really need to secure some major limits on immigration. Cameron has just got a major headache.
I can't see any upside for Labour in electing Jezza.
They will gain enthusiasm and numbers? They will gain the shouty, obnoxious brigade who vote Labour anyway and do their best to put off any undecided. "We don't want you, you're not Labour enough."
Brilliant strategy.
After Salmond announced his resignation as First Minister, the membership of the SNP increased by 100,000. The SNP then went on to virtually wipe out Labour and the LibDem MPs in Scotland in the GE.
The Labour party has increased it's membership to 600,000, and I suspect many more will join if Corbyn wins. Er! Perhaps you might see some possibilities in the correlation between the SNP and Labour's increases in active members living a dream of change.
Or not if you are a Tory, with a declining and ageing membership?
Nah, size isn't important, it is what you do with it that counts.
The general election showed that the Tories had the superior ground game with superb micro-targetting.
Labour had more activists (including as IOS couldn't stop reminding us) 1,600 activists on election day in one seat.
But we spanked Labour back into the electoral stone age
Interesting, but simplistic. I will admit that the one brilliant tactic that the Tories used was in scaring English voters with the thought of Sturgeon controlling PM Miliband by gripping his dangling bities.
In Scotland, that thought played rather better.
As for spanking, well, I won't bow to your experiences for obvious reasons. What ever turns you on.
Any way, while we in Scotland (yet again) await the return of the Leader across the water (Thames that is) to save us in our hour of need as the SNP government slowly collapses in its own incompetences But that's another story for another day.
The SNP increase has brought about a lot of changes within the party structures as all those new members are bringing in new thoughts, ideas and enthusiasm, a lot of which is not really appreciated by the old core, as particularly seen by the infighting over becoming constituent PMSP's prior to next year's Holyrood elections.
I do not follow the 'swinging tax rise' claim or that it is now on turnover. Moneyfactsdotcodotuk says ''The Summer Budget 2015 has reduced the amount of tax relief that is available for interest on buy-to-let mortgages. Before that, landlords paying higher (40%) or additional (45%) rate tax could claim tax relief at their highest rate, but the Budget changes mean that tax relief can only be reclaimed at the basic rate (20%), whatever rate of tax the landlord pays.'' No mention of tax on turnover...
The Telegraph suggests as follows - ''The tax changes, which begin in 2017, will see landlords lose a quarter of their higher-rate relief each year until 2020, when it will be restricted to 20pc on all mortgage interest.'' So its being phased in. ''The National Landlords Association (NLA) has calculated for Telegraph Money that this could reduce typical yields from 4.9pc to 4.3pc for 40pc taxpayers'' Is this so terrible? Some yields are higher than this. True - ''It could also, for example, convert an annual profit of £612 to a loss of £588 on a typical £160,000 property on which there is a £120,000 loan, according to mortgage broker London & Country.'' In other words people who are mortgaged up to the hilt in order to earn £600 a year ???!!! I suggest putting solar panels on your roof will earn you more. But - ''if landlords remortgage now, not only will they protect themselves against rising borrowing costs, they may also be able to claw back shortfalls left in the wake of the tax changes. David Hollingworth of L&C said: "As the relief available to higher-rate taxpayers is phased out, it will become all the more important for landlords to be on top of their borrowing costs." '' ''One way for higher-rate taxpayers to cut their tax bills might be to invest via a company. This is not difficult, and can be arranged by your solicitor. But proceed with caution, as there can be complications.'' ''The changes should prompt landlords to reassess their holdings, with a view to selling up or paying off some of the loan.'' ''Many commentators believe rents will have to rise, although how easy that will be given recent sharp upward moves remains to be seen.''
The Telegraph point out the current tax relief on mortgage interest paid by buy-to-let investors is worth £5bn a year. Is that popular with the rest of us? (PS my family have 3 small BTLs.) This applies to higher rate payers and the higher rate allowance is also rising.
I have absolutely nothing against private and buy to let landlords. Many - as the Winston Wolf advert suggests, stumble (like we did) into being a landlord, 'a player'. But are these changes so terrible??
Comments
But there's an interesting detail in the report. If Corbyn is chosen, the Greens are heavily damaged (36% switch to Labour) and interestingly some switch from the other parties too (8% of Tories, 9% of UKIP, 18% of LibDems). But 25% of 2010 Labour voters no longer say they'll vote Labour. Some of these will be in the don't know camp, others like SO here seem to be irretrievably lost. Corbyn's immediate job if he wins will be to bring back some of those, e.g. by a broad-ranging shadow cabinet. The Tories' immediate job will be to try to harden up the defections and possibly give some thought to why they'd be losing more votes to Corbyn than Miliband managed.
You are right. As soon as Corbyn wins, if he does, the hard left will move to transform their online takeover of Labour by a physical takeover at constituency level. Even if Corbyn's reign is short the succession will be poisoned by the ideology of the hard left. I see no easy way back.
Likewise, Thatcher would have been bemused by Cameron's Conservative Party.
Labour's current woes show that one of the Conservative party's great strengths is that it can slowly evolve as society changes. Labour tried a big-bang approach to change with New Labour, but it seems they're bouncing back to their old stomping grounds to fight battles that have long been won by their opponents.
I think I used an analogy the other day that the Labour Party were 115 years old and senile, whilst the Conservative Party were undead shape-shifters.
Edited extra bit: Conservative voters, I meant.
A more serious point would be if it caused a great backlash against the party as a whole. But - would it? Tax credits have never been very popular and contrary to Labour propaganda, are not terribly effective either (partly, of course, because they are run by HMRC which thanks to chronic mismanagement in the last 15 years since its merger is grossly understaffed and hopelessly inefficient). They are definitely a sledgehammer trying to perform microsurgery.
The key question is whether the drop in income for those on tax credits will be compensated for by those who are able to do so (which is again of course not all of them) working more hours. That's something we won't know about until it happens.
Finally, one last thought - how many people in receipt of tax credits will have voted Conservative at the last election anyway? I'm guessing they were mostly self-employed people on lowish incomes, who tend to be the ones who get the worst deal in terms of incompetence from tax credits anyway, due to fluctuations in their income. Would such people vote for another party with Corbyn in the offing? Almost certainly not.
Therefore, Osborne could in theory get away with doing nothing. My view is he would be wrong to do so - he needs to be proactively helping such people so tax credits are not needed anyway, and so there is more purchasing power at the lower end of the economy - but it's not hard to see how he could do it.
>The couple with the single BTL property are about to be forced to sell that property due to swingeing tax rises which is going to go down very badly, and even worse when they see their largely competitors continue almost unaffected, and possibly buying their property off them.
There are other issues too. There have been massive regulation increases of PRS regulation in the last few years - since the 2004 Act. LLs are now immigration policemen too.
I'd say the main victims of this will be leveraged portfolio landlords - say people in BTL for 15-20 years with 20+ properties.
I already know a number who will be selling up because of the tax on imputed not real income, and going into tax exile because of the CGT hit.
That, and the published aims of landlording being a business not a dabble, run counter to then impact which will be to deprofessionalise parts of the industry.
>I wouldn't necessarily say I'm against BTL. It's just that BTL is part of the problem with housing in this country. There's a difference between the couple who have one BTL property and the companies that hold dozens.
Not sure. We still have one of the smallest provate rental sectors in Europe. It is predominently a supply problem.
Corbyn will kill your party stone dead. Indeed, 22% wouldn't be a bad result under his leadership. If you cannot see that I feel sorry for you.
Far from the shock $2 price for a pound, it's still around $1.58 or so, as it has been for ages.
I do wonder about news chaps sometimes. Not as bad as the oaf Bilton, whose migrant crisis piece included the intellectual insight that the Mediterranean was a large body of water, but still.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34044453
See my last comment.
In an industry which is being bureaucratised to death, and which is fragmented to people owning a couple of properties on the side, there is little option but to use professional agents.
Two years ago the Residential Landlords Association published a list of 100 different Acts of Parliament that affect renting. There have been several more since :-)
Even though I have been renting a small no of properties out for a couple of decades, I would not even consider running eg a student rental myself - it is just too complex, there is too much paperwork and too many little offences that can be made criminal should a Council wish.
So I employ the best professionals for that I can.
>Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem
Holiday homes are well under 1% of the housing stock. There are very few homes never lived in.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvc9FUEkGaM
Reminds me of Sonic the Hedgehog (Dr. Robotnik used to be a nice chap called Kintobor).
To be honest, very few of my close friends are Socialists. That said, there are a fair number of Labourites here on PB.com whom I view as being highly intelligent, politically savvy, as well as being reasonably moderate in their outlook.
I have therefore been surprised, startled even, by how many of these have professed their support for Corbyn in the leadership contest over recent weeks.
It's almost as if they feel bitter and twisted by the General Election result they had expected to win and that somewhat perversely this is their way of getting back at the party's establishment who they consider let them down so badly.
Sandwich prices going uuuuuuuuuuuppppppppp.
Moreover, it is unlikely that Labour would descend into total chaos under their leadership. Under Corbyn, it is more or less certain. Therefore, although those numbers are bad, there would be room for improvement.
Finally, yes, they all did badly. That's a damning indictment of the lack of talent in Labour. But at the same time, Burnham or Cooper (I'm no fan) might land some blows on Cameron. Corbyn? First sign of trouble, out comes Paul Eisen.
Sometimes you just get on and do what you have to in government. You carry on doing the right thing and let others worry about it.
The damage is done. How on earth can anyone trust the judgement of MPs who went out of their way to nominate him, first of all knowing him and his views and then knowing full well the way their electorate was open to manipulation, from both outside and from the Unions.
:-)
“We tried to make urban districts better for 50 years. We tried more funding, more accountability, more pipelines of talent, more [professional development], more training, more certification rules, and on and on and on. After all of that time, and all of those cities, we still don't have a single high-performing urban district in America. Not one,” Andy Smarick, an education-policy analyst, told me. “But the very first time we try an all-charter system, the first time ever, we get dramatically better results in only a decade.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/how-new-orleans-proved-education-reform-can-work.html
What was most interesting is that it wasn't just 'teaching to the test'. Children also improved on tests that did not affect teacher performance, and university acceptance rates rose.
Hopefully the Gove revolution will show similar success.
That moment when you trip over at a gallery and punch a hole in a £1MILLION
http://dailym.ai/1KJw5As
The Labour party has increased it's membership to 600,000, and I suspect many more will join if Corbyn wins. Er! Perhaps you might see some possibilities in the correlation between the SNP and Labour's increases in active members living a dream of change.
Or not if you are a Tory, with a declining and ageing membership?
Nah, size isn't important, it is what you do with it that counts.
The general election showed that the Tories had the superior ground game with superb micro-targetting.
Labour had more activists (including as IOS couldn't stop reminding us) 1,600 activists on election day in one seat.
But we spanked Labour back into the electoral stone age
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/roger-cohen-jeremy-corbyn-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-politics.html?_r=0
The last paragraph is particularly worth reading in light of the header:
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/636092093476249600
First they should get back a whopping 1% to 2% from the Greens. In Scotland probably a wash as they will lose votes on competence and gain a similar number of socialists from the SNP.
Of their 2015 voters i can see two camps that are likely to move.
1. The Progress voters who attract the headlines and just will not stomach the socialists. A few to the Conservatives, a few to the LDs but a lot may not vote at all.
2. The WWC voters. Some of these I guess will move a few % to the Conservatives but a larger % may go to UKIP because of immigration.
Overall vote shares in the range of Con 40%, Lab 20%, UKIP 17% and LD 9%.
Fair enough. My mistake, although non-US dollars should perhaps have been specified.
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold.
NickP I can recommend a conveyancing solicitor for advice and possible work who is very familar with tenancy matters - old school 100 yr old practice specialising in a few traditional areas. Email me topcat001ATyahoo.com
Thanks
@JosiasJessop
>Thanks for that. Although it's hard to say that any of that is unnecessary, especially with large developments. The floods of 2013/4 show that things like SuDS (or whatever they''re calling it now) is vital to manage water.
Fair comment.
My first point for a chainsaw would be complications in Planning, and all the bodies who are consulted – some of which have clear conflicts of interests. Eg The Batmen who make their living advising on bats tend to be the same people to whom Environment have largely devolved making policy about Bats.
@TCP
I suggest that the BTL changes will be a large part of de-bubbling London for a decade. All those middle level professionals will now have somewhere to buy and the starting out renters will be even worse off.
Ooop North we get 7-9% returns on the right properties (perhaps 4-5% after mortgage and other costs but zero appreciation at present) so can absorb one lot of tax increases on a deemed income equivalent to an extra 1% out of that return. In London most of the mortgaged landlords make 2-5% including mortgage so -1 to 2% after mortgage so may be under water.
Then interest rates will be going up soon. Bloodbath time.
>MattW - great piece on the reality of house planning. How did you sort out the funding for the 20% for affordable housing?
We will be selling with Outline permission. It will be a £15m project – too big for us to take on.
Another current housing problem is that mid-size developers were pithed by the recession, and the few that are left find finance very difficult.
>There is another effect that is worth mentioning. Because the cost of land and planning permission is such a high proportion of the cost of a house (70% now instead of 2% in the 1930s) builders have to save money where they can - they have to build low quality, ugly houses to make any money at all. And they know somebody out there will have to buy them.
Around our area land and getting planning would cost about 30% depending. On the project I detailed the total cost of the planning process to Outline stage is about £100k, which is the buy-in stake in the game of Planning Poker with the Planning Committee.
70% might be right for some City or Southern settings.
This is a reasonable 'typical' breakdown:
Some of those social costs have transferred straight out of the land price which would have been higher as a % 15 or 20 years ago.
People in the industry talk about the price of the land, then look up the cost of the Section 106 and simply deduct it to get the selling price.
@Indigo
Trust you now know your BLTs from your BTLs. Tenants are not caterpillars. Mainly.
@DavidHerdson
>If inheritance laws enable people to pass down property without tax then there does need to be some other tax mechanism to prevent (or at least limit) the development of an unbridgable divide opening up between a property-owning class and a rental one.
I believe that the extra allowance is limited to the family home.
Silly idea. Osbo should have tackled the prices instead, and removed the CGT exemption completely.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-opens-its-gates-berlin-says-all-syrian-asylumseekers-are-welcome-to-remain-as-britain-is-urged-to-make-a-similar-statement-10470062.html
He is enjoying his fame, his influence and the chance to present his passionate beliefs to a wider audience, who to his eyes, are keen to adopt his views by cheering and applauding him.
Actually I am not in that line of business at all, although Mrs Indigo keeps bugging me about it, at least the recent changes have let me bury that idea for the moment.
Its more that I had an whole evening of getting my ear bent on the subject by a very pissed off WWC guy with a couple of modest properties who was voicing serious doubts about why he voted Tory this time, and I believe will be a sure fire kipper next time around.
To me, old enough to have lived through the 80s and years of Militant madness and all the rest, it seems impossible to believe.
We really need to secure some major limits on immigration. Cameron has just got a major headache.
In Scotland, that thought played rather better.
As for spanking, well, I won't bow to your experiences for obvious reasons. What ever turns you on.
Any way, while we in Scotland (yet again) await the return of the Leader across the water (Thames that is) to save us in our hour of need as the SNP government slowly collapses in its own incompetences But that's another story for another day.
The SNP increase has brought about a lot of changes within the party structures as all those new members are bringing in new thoughts, ideas and enthusiasm, a lot of which is not really appreciated by the old core, as particularly seen by the infighting over becoming constituent PMSP's prior to next year's Holyrood elections.
I do not follow the 'swinging tax rise' claim or that it is now on turnover.
Moneyfactsdotcodotuk says
''The Summer Budget 2015 has reduced the amount of tax relief that is available for interest on buy-to-let mortgages. Before that, landlords paying higher (40%) or additional (45%) rate tax could claim tax relief at their highest rate, but the Budget changes mean that tax relief can only be reclaimed at the basic rate (20%), whatever rate of tax the landlord pays.''
No mention of tax on turnover...
The Telegraph suggests as follows -
''The tax changes, which begin in 2017, will see landlords lose a quarter of their higher-rate relief each year until 2020, when it will be restricted to 20pc on all mortgage interest.''
So its being phased in.
''The National Landlords Association (NLA) has calculated for Telegraph Money that this could reduce typical yields from 4.9pc to 4.3pc for 40pc taxpayers''
Is this so terrible? Some yields are higher than this.
True -
''It could also, for example, convert an annual profit of £612 to a loss of £588 on a typical £160,000 property on which there is a £120,000 loan, according to mortgage broker London & Country.''
In other words people who are mortgaged up to the hilt in order to earn £600 a year ???!!! I suggest putting solar panels on your roof will earn you more.
But -
''if landlords remortgage now, not only will they protect themselves against rising borrowing costs, they may also be able to claw back shortfalls left in the wake of the tax changes. David Hollingworth of L&C said: "As the relief available to higher-rate taxpayers is phased out, it will become all the more important for landlords to be on top of their borrowing costs." ''
''One way for higher-rate taxpayers to cut their tax bills might be to invest via a company. This is not difficult, and can be arranged by your solicitor. But proceed with caution, as there can be complications.''
''The changes should prompt landlords to reassess their holdings, with a view to selling up or paying off some of the loan.''
''Many commentators believe rents will have to rise, although how easy that will be given recent sharp upward moves remains to be seen.''
The Telegraph point out the current tax relief on mortgage interest paid by buy-to-let investors is worth £5bn a year. Is that popular with the rest of us? (PS my family have 3 small BTLs.)
This applies to higher rate payers and the higher rate allowance is also rising.
I have absolutely nothing against private and buy to let landlords. Many - as the Winston Wolf advert suggests, stumble (like we did) into being a landlord, 'a player'. But are these changes so terrible??