TODAY'S POLITICAL QUIZ At the General Election the Tories polled 1,987,272 more votes than Labour. (BBC figures) Suppose that a Corbyn led Labour party persuaded non-voters to vote Labour, so that Labour gained 2,987,272 extra voters (thus outpolling the Tories by a million voters).
THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you thing Labour would get?
Labour would pick up about 40 Tory seats, 2 LD, 1 SNP. So an extra 43 seats, giving them 275 in total.
Nearest I've been to Manchester is Alderley Edge (interview for Astra Zeneca three years back). I see the trains from Brum take 90 minutes or so, I might me tempted to come along...
London to Manchester in 70 with HS2. You must be looking forward to the future.
The phase 2 route to Manchester and Leeds is already marked in the new edition of the Rail Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland!
Congratulations to those who responded, because they were not tricked. Instinctively I would have thought that polling a million more votes than the Conservatives would have produced a lot of gains. In fact all the answers were pretty near the mark. Well done.
THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you think Labour would get?
THE ANSWER: 46 (39 in England, 5 in Wales, 2 in Scotland) Losses: Cons 41, LD 2, SNP 2, PC 1
STATE OF PARTIES Cons 289 Lab 278 SNP 54 LD 6 Others 21 (18 NI, 1 Green, 1 UKIP, 1 Speaker)
It just goes to re-affirm the tough task that Labour face in getting a future majority without going into coalition with other parties.
It is truly remarkable to see how a roughly 30% rise in their national vote makes almost no difference to Labour's position in Scotland. Can they ever begin to recover north of the border from such a hopeless position? Or are the Labour years of dominance in the 1990s going to be like the Tory years of the 1930s?
Dr. Prasannan, then Cyrus was Persian, not Iranian, because that's the way time works
Mr Dancer, the two terms are used interchangeably, in a cultural context.
You mean as in Iran objecting to us using the name Anglo-Pesian Oil Company and addressing the problem by stealing the oil?
That's not quite right. Their main objection was that we were extracting oil from their country at rates far below the going rate, based on a negotiation that was underpinned with the threat of British gunboat diplomacy.
Just seen a shocking video recorded by the Virginia gunman as he carried out the shooting. He posted it on Facebook apparently although it's on lots of other sites as well.
"Society cannot function if everyone knows everything about everyone else," McAfee sagely noted, explaining that if two parties have contradictory beliefs it is a natural human instinct to try and settle those differences, which leads to conflict. If those parties are unaware of their differing beliefs, however, this conflict has no room in which to take place. It is, in McAfee's view, essential for civilisation: "Privacy creates a barrier through which conflict is stifled."
TODAY'S POLITICAL QUIZ At the General Election the Tories polled 1,987,272 more votes than Labour. (BBC figures) Suppose that a Corbyn led Labour party persuaded non-voters to vote Labour, so that Labour gained 2,987,272 extra voters (thus outpolling the Tories by a million voters).
THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you thing Labour would get?
Labour would pick up about 40 Tory seats, 2 LD, 1 SNP. So an extra 43 seats, giving them 275 in total.
Dr. Prasannan, then Cyrus was Persian, not Iranian, because that's the way time works
Mr Dancer, the two terms are used interchangeably, in a cultural context.
You mean as in Iran objecting to us using the name Anglo-Pesian Oil Company and addressing the problem by stealing the oil?
That's not quite right. Their main objection was that we were extracting oil from their country at rates far below the going rate, based on a negotiation that was underpinned with the threat of British gunboat diplomacy.
"Society cannot function if everyone knows everything about everyone else," McAfee sagely noted, explaining that if two parties have contradictory beliefs it is a natural human instinct to try and settle those differences, which leads to conflict. If those parties are unaware of their differing beliefs, however, this conflict has no room in which to take place. It is, in McAfee's view, essential for civilisation: "Privacy creates a barrier through which conflict is stifled."
The downsides of globalisation and mass immigration explained very nicely
Reading the last thread, I have to laugh at the excerpt as to why Osborne is 'setting the agenda'. He says gay marriage was controversial. Among, whom is exactly? Not a vast majority of the public, but his own party who apparently being so pro-equality voted in large numbers against the act. Osborne isn't anywhere close to establishing a political consensus among all parties for a lower welfare bill either - not in the least, because how low the bill actually will be is questionable. As I said last night, a large chalk of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and pension-related benefits. Yet pension benefits aren't being cut.
I bet Gordon Brown thought his ever-expanding state would last forever as well.
Congratulations to those who responded, because they were not tricked. Instinctively I would have thought that polling a million more votes than the Conservatives would have produced a lot of gains. In fact all the answers were pretty near the mark. Well done.
THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you think Labour would get?
THE ANSWER: 46 (39 in England, 5 in Wales, 2 in Scotland) Losses: Cons 41, LD 2, SNP 2, PC 1
STATE OF PARTIES Cons 289 Lab 278 SNP 54 LD 6 Others 21 (18 NI, 1 Green, 1 UKIP, 1 Speaker)
It just goes to re-affirm the tough task that Labour face in getting a future majority without going into coalition with other parties.
Good one. Mathematically, the key to this puzzle is the SNP. It turns out that in the 56 SNP seats, L won a wasted five thousand more votes than C, on average. So that is about 1/4 of a million of a "wasted gap" that would have done more work if it were magically transported to another region, like the North-West of England. Topping Labour up by another five thousand just adds another 1/4 million votes here while overturning an unbelievable 2 (!) seats from the SNP to Labour. So in your scenario, half a million of Labour's lead is wasted in Scottish seats it won't win.
Just seen a shocking video recorded by the Virginia gunman as he carried out the shooting. He posted it on Facebook apparently although it's on lots of other sites as well.
Amazing how he stood just feet from them with the gun pointed at them for about 45 seconds, with the victims seemingly oblivious...
Shooter reportedly still alive after shooting himself.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
It won't solve the housing shortage though, and cause further problems.
'Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more.
One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. If he converted the property into two units he could increase the current rent to cover the tax. The council would have to rehouse the family, he said, “and there is already an acute shortage of housing in that area”. Another landlord described a £110,000 property, on which there is a £68,000 mortgage, let to an elderly couple at “about two thirds of the going market rent”. It generates an annual £1,100 profit, which would fall to £370 after the tax change.
“The property needs a new boiler, which would wipe out profits for years,” the landlord said.
“My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.'
Nigel Farage is trying to block Suzanne Evans from becoming Ukip candidate for Mayor of London with a covert campaign to install a less threatening, loyal party colleague in her place, sources have told Coffee House.
Don't see what qualifies Suzanne Evans to be a good candidate for the London Mayoralty. Not from London, doesn't live in London...
I think people only praise her so highly as a alternative way of slighting Farage.. I cant think what she has done to be so highly thought of by non kippers
Peter Whittle would be the best choice for UKIP I reckon.
(I wrote that without reading the article by the way!)
Evans' chief asset is putting the UKIP case well on the TV circuit and looking and sounding reasonable. I'd assume she might help broaden the party's appeal.
I agree with you that she's not obviously a Mayoral candidate but one way or another UKIP need to sort all these briefings out or they're going to miss a very big post-Corbyn opportunity.
I have met Suzanne and she is good company, but her media performances haven't struck me as particularly impressive. Whittle is from London, did very well as candidate in a London constituency (Eltham), speaks nicely and writes very well on social issues in London. Seems the obvious candidate to me
Obvious to you huh? Give me a break. So why not have a vote on it then? Is there something wrong with letting the local membership vote on the choice? Oh yes Saint Nigel may not like it.
TODAY'S POLITICAL QUIZ At the General Election the Tories polled 1,987,272 more votes than Labour. (BBC figures) Suppose that a Corbyn led Labour party persuaded non-voters to vote Labour, so that Labour gained 2,987,272 extra voters (thus outpolling the Tories by a million voters).
THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you thing Labour would get?
Treat this like a Fermi question. 3m votes over 632 constituencies is under five thousand votes per constituency. Deduct about half of one-eleventh of five thousand, which is about half of the average of 400 and 500, i.e. 250; about 4,750 votes per constituency. I think the only Lib Dem seat is Sheffield, Hallam, maybe a Plaid seat, maybe 5 SNP seats, so add seven to whatever the Tories have to lose. That's the challenging figure to estimate. Naively, I'd guess 50. My Bayesian sense tells me if you are asking the question, it's low enough to be surprising, so 25. So I guess 32.
The numbers will be different in each seat, surely?
If I had a spreadsheet, you could do a sum based on "is the gap between the winning party and Labour in a given seat smaller than the number of voters not voting"
I have a hunch that most of the seats with the lowest turnouts, they already hold so a great deal of those votes will stack up in places they've already won - in 2010, the places with < 50 % turnout were Manchester Central, Leeds Central, Birmingham Ladywood, Glasgow North East, Blackley & Broughton and Thirsk & Malton - 4 Labour, 1 SNP and 1 Con.
Nigel Farage is trying to block Suzanne Evans from becoming Ukip candidate for Mayor of London with a covert campaign to install a less threatening, loyal party colleague in her place, sources have told Coffee House.
Don't see what qualifies Suzanne Evans to be a good candidate for the London Mayoralty. Not from London, doesn't live in London...
I think people only praise her so highly as a alternative way of slighting Farage.. I cant think what she has done to be so highly thought of by non kippers
Peter Whittle would be the best choice for UKIP I reckon.
(I wrote that without reading the article by the way!)
Evans' chief asset is putting the UKIP case well on the TV circuit and looking and sounding reasonable. I'd assume she might help broaden the party's appeal.
I agree with you that she's not obviously a Mayoral candidate but one way or another UKIP need to sort all these briefings out or they're going to miss a very big post-Corbyn opportunity.
I have met Suzanne and she is good company, but her media performances haven't struck me as particularly impressive. Whittle is from London, did very well as candidate in a London constituency (Eltham), speaks nicely and writes very well on social issues in London. Seems the obvious candidate to me
Obvious to you huh? Give me a break. So why not have a vote on it then? Is there something wrong with letting the local membership vote on the choice? Oh yes Saint Nigel may not like it.
Dr. Prasannan, modern history's not my forte. If it was India when he was born there, he was born in India.
You can't retcon history. It's like Greeks claiming Alexander, or Frenchmen William the Conqueror.
Miss Plato, dogs are super.
William the Conqueror was French. Normandy was technically a fief of the French crown and I believe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to the Normans as French. And Alexander was pretty Greek, if not Attic.
Sorry to be coming so late to this but March?? The British Polling Council report is coming out in March? Incredible.
Have those in the industry just given up on the idea that they might be able to persuade people that they have got it right this time? The money spent on polling in the last Parliament must have been a record and it is hard to argue other than it was all wasted but this Parliament is looking at a record low if they wait that long to try and get back in the game.
March? If it's that you have to wonder why ComRes are bothering to change their methodology now - the verdicts of BPC report could completely contradict the adjustments they've made.
Congratulations to those who responded, because they were not tricked. Instinctively I would have thought that polling a million more votes than the Conservatives would have produced a lot of gains. In fact all the answers were pretty near the mark. Well done.
THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you think Labour would get?
THE ANSWER: 46 (39 in England, 5 in Wales, 2 in Scotland) Losses: Cons 41, LD 2, SNP 2, PC 1
STATE OF PARTIES Cons 289 Lab 278 SNP 54 LD 6 Others 21 (18 NI, 1 Green, 1 UKIP, 1 Speaker)
It just goes to re-affirm the tough task that Labour face in getting a future majority without going into coalition with other parties.
Good one. Mathematically, the key to this puzzle is the SNP. It turns out that in the 56 SNP seats, L won a wasted five thousand more votes than C, on average. So that is about 1/4 of a million of a "wasted gap" that would have done more work if it were magically transported to another region, like the North-West of England. Topping Labour up by another five thousand just adds another 1/4 million votes here while overturning an unbelievable 2 (!) seats from the SNP to Labour. So in your scenario, half a million of Labour's lead is wasted in Scottish seats it won't win.
Good explanation. I can't possibly improve on that.
In fact to gain 326 seats on this model *, Labour would need to pick up 5,035,164 non-voters and poll 14,382,468 votes. For the record, even under Blair in 1997 Labour only got 13,518,167 votes!
It's no good basing an election winning strategy on a core vote + returning non-voters. Labour need to win back voters from other parties, and I can't see Corbyn doing that.
* Usual caveats apply, though it's not a million miles from reality!
March? If it's that you have to wonder why ComRes are bothering to change their methodology now - the verdicts of BPC report could completely contradict the adjustments they've made.
What I find surprising is that they are not all doing the same. I wonder what happened to the staff that used to do these surveys? They won't be hanging around until March. The lack of those with the experience to carry out political surveys (rather than, say, washing powder) may be yet another problem for the industry in due course.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
Sorry to be coming so late to this but March?? The British Polling Council report is coming out in March? Incredible.
Have those in the industry just given up on the idea that they might be able to persuade people that they have got it right this time? The money spent on polling in the last Parliament must have been a record and it is hard to argue other than it was all wasted but this Parliament is looking at a record low if they wait that long to try and get back in the game.
March does seem a long time. Is Chilcot moonlighting?
Reading the last thread, I have to laugh at the excerpt as to why Osborne is 'setting the agenda'. He says gay marriage was controversial. Among, whom is exactly? Not a vast majority of the public, but his own party who apparently being so pro-equality voted in large numbers against the act. Osborne isn't anywhere close to establishing a political consensus among all parties for a lower welfare bill either - not in the least, because how low the bill actually will be is questionable. As I said last night, a large chalk of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and pension-related benefits. Yet pension benefits aren't being cut.
I bet Gordon Brown thought his ever-expanding state would last forever as well.
Vast majority? According to polls it wasn't overwhelmingly supported. I'd say controversial was reasonably accurate.
Another poll in May 2013 again confirmed public support for the bill with 53% in favour of the introduction of same sex marriage.[69] A second poll in May showed a similar support of 54%, also showing that 58% of people who considered same sex marriage an important election issue would be more likely to vote for a party supporting it.[70] A May 2013 Ipsos poll found that 55% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage.[71]
Sorry to be coming so late to this but March?? The British Polling Council report is coming out in March? Incredible.
Have those in the industry just given up on the idea that they might be able to persuade people that they have got it right this time? The money spent on polling in the last Parliament must have been a record and it is hard to argue other than it was all wasted but this Parliament is looking at a record low if they wait that long to try and get back in the game.
March does seem a long time. Is Chilcot moonlighting?
LOL. If it was Chilcott we would have no chance of a report before the next election.
Reading the last thread, I have to laugh at the excerpt as to why Osborne is 'setting the agenda'. He says gay marriage was controversial. Among, whom is exactly? Not a vast majority of the public, but his own party who apparently being so pro-equality voted in large numbers against the act. Osborne isn't anywhere close to establishing a political consensus among all parties for a lower welfare bill either - not in the least, because how low the bill actually will be is questionable. As I said last night, a large chalk of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and pension-related benefits. Yet pension benefits aren't being cut.
I bet Gordon Brown thought his ever-expanding state would last forever as well.
Vast majority? According to polls it wasn't overwhelmingly supported. I'd say controversial was reasonably accurate.
Another poll in May 2013 again confirmed public support for the bill with 53% in favour of the introduction of same sex marriage.[69] A second poll in May showed a similar support of 54%, also showing that 58% of people who considered same sex marriage an important election issue would be more likely to vote for a party supporting it.[70] A May 2013 Ipsos poll found that 55% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage.[71]
It depends on the number of don't knows but I'd say these polls:
The latest poll made by BBC Radio in March 2014 found that 68% of the respondents agreed same-sex marriage should be permitted and 26% opposed it. The research also found that younger people were more likely to support same-sex marriage, with 80% of 18 to 34-year-olds backing it, compared with 44% of over-65s. Of those polled, women were more likely to support same-sex marriage than men, with 75% of women for it compared with 61% of men in favour. [72]
Some 62% of those questioned by pollsters ICM Research for The Guardian said that same-sex couples should be allowed to, against 31% who oppose the change and 7% who did not know.
Dr. Prasannan, modern history's not my forte. If it was India when he was born there, he was born in India.
You can't retcon history. It's like Greeks claiming Alexander, or Frenchmen William the Conqueror.
Miss Plato, dogs are super.
William the Conqueror was French. Normandy was technically a fief of the French crown and I believe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to the Normans as French. And Alexander was pretty Greek, if not Attic.
No, he was a Norman. Normans at that time were not considered French, 'nor-man' being a contraction of 'Northman' - Dane. They also spoke a different language, although it was a dialect of French. Normandy was officially a fief of the French crown, but it bore much the same relationship to the French Crown that Hong Kong did to China before 1997 - officially part of it, but in practice something rather different.
And as Mr Prasannan notes, the English kings claimed France - so James I and VI is styled in the KJV of the Bible as the king of 'Great Britain, Ireland and France' (which is interesting, as 'Great Britain' didn't officially exist until 1707). Mary and Philip claimed to be joint monarchs of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, Spain and Ireland. Of course, it wasn't just the French one that was a pretty nominal claim!
Reading the last thread, I have to laugh at the excerpt as to why Osborne is 'setting the agenda'. He says gay marriage was controversial. Among, whom is exactly? Not a vast majority of the public, but his own party who apparently being so pro-equality voted in large numbers against the act. Osborne isn't anywhere close to establishing a political consensus among all parties for a lower welfare bill either - not in the least, because how low the bill actually will be is questionable. As I said last night, a large chalk of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and pension-related benefits. Yet pension benefits aren't being cut.
I bet Gordon Brown thought his ever-expanding state would last forever as well.
Vast majority? According to polls it wasn't overwhelmingly supported. I'd say controversial was reasonably accurate.
Another poll in May 2013 again confirmed public support for the bill with 53% in favour of the introduction of same sex marriage.[69] A second poll in May showed a similar support of 54%, also showing that 58% of people who considered same sex marriage an important election issue would be more likely to vote for a party supporting it.[70] A May 2013 Ipsos poll found that 55% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage.[71]
It depends on the number of don't knows but I'd say these polls:
The latest poll made by BBC Radio in March 2014 found that 68% of the respondents agreed same-sex marriage should be permitted and 26% opposed it. The research also found that younger people were more likely to support same-sex marriage, with 80% of 18 to 34-year-olds backing it, compared with 44% of over-65s. Of those polled, women were more likely to support same-sex marriage than men, with 75% of women for it compared with 61% of men in favour. [72]
Some 62% of those questioned by pollsters ICM Research for The Guardian said that same-sex couples should be allowed to, against 31% who oppose the change and 7% who did not know.
Suggest the vast majority do.
Polls taken after the bill was passed but not enacted. So Osborne was correct in saying it was controversial. It is now not.
Dr. Prasannan, that relates to inheritance (and the Treaty of Troyes), and is an entirely different matter.
Mr. Lilburne, he was a Norman. The Normans (previously Vikings) conquered Normandy, resisted French attempts to take it back, and nodded convincingly when the French king decided to 'let' them have it forever.
If William were French then a successful French conquest of England would've led to the two countries uniting, as almost happened in the early 13th century when rubbish King John nearly lost the whole country [if my admittedly fuzzy memory is right].
Alexander was the son of an Epirot and a Macedonian, who inherited the throne of Macedon. There were cultural similarities, but Macedon was not Greek, any more than Epirus or Illyria were. This divide was made clear when Eumenes of Cardia was unable to advance his ambitions beyond being a servant because he was Greek and *not* Macedonian [whereas Antigonus, Cassander, Seleucus, Lysimachus, Perdiccas and Ptolemy, being Macedonian, could pursue power].
Both points, I grant, are open to dispute, but those are my views.
Nigel Farage is trying to block Suzanne Evans from becoming Ukip candidate for Mayor of London with a covert campaign to install a less threatening, loyal party colleague in her place, sources have told Coffee House.
Don't see what qualifies Suzanne Evans to be a good candidate for the London Mayoralty. Not from London, doesn't live in London...
I think people only praise her so highly as a alternative way of slighting Farage.. I cant think what she has done to be so highly thought of by non kippers
Peter Whittle would be the best choice for UKIP I reckon.
(I wrote that without reading the article by the way!)
Evans' chief asset is putting the UKIP case well on the TV circuit and looking and sounding reasonable. I'd assume she might help broaden the party's appeal.
I agree with you that she's not obviously a Mayoral candidate but one way or another UKIP need to sort all these briefings out or they're going to miss a very big post-Corbyn opportunity.
I have met Suzanne and she is good company, but her media performances haven't struck me as particularly impressive. Whittle is from London, did very well as candidate in a London constituency (Eltham), speaks nicely and writes very well on social issues in London. Seems the obvious candidate to me
Obvious to you huh? Give me a break. So why not have a vote on it then? Is there something wrong with letting the local membership vote on the choice? Oh yes Saint Nigel may not like it.
TODAY'S POLITICAL QUIZ At the General Election the Tories polled 1,987,272 more votes than Labour. (BBC figures) Suppose that a Corbyn led Labour party persuaded non-voters to vote Labour, so that Labour gained 2,987,272 extra voters (thus outpolling the Tories by a million voters).
THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you thing Labour would get?
Labour would pick up about 40 Tory seats, 2 LD, 1 SNP. So an extra 43 seats, giving them 275 in total.
Polls taken after the bill was passed and enacted. So Osborne was correct in saying it was controversial. It is now not.
The ICM poll was taken in December 2012, before the act was passed.
Populus also polled in 2012, asking:
''Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships'' They found 65% of people agreed, and 27% disagreed with 8% saying don’t know. They also asked whether people agreed with the statement that “Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples” which was agreed with by 76% of people. The tables make it unclear whether the order of the statements was rotated, or whether they were asked in the order presented with the marriage question first.
Polls taken after the bill was passed and enacted. So Osborne was correct in saying it was controversial. It is now not.
The ICM poll was taken in December 2012, before the act was passed.
Populus also polled in 2012, asking:
''Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships'' They found 65% of people agreed, and 27% disagreed with 8% saying don’t know. They also asked whether people agreed with the statement that “Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples” which was agreed with by 76% of people. The tables make it unclear whether the order of the statements was rotated, or whether they were asked in the order presented with the marriage question first.
You linked a poll from 2014 in your original post. If you look at the summary, you'll find support was typically ~50%, immediately prior to passing. Before there was even less support.
If I take out a mortgage to live (and not let) can you tell me what the tax relief is? I'll help you out - zero. Buy to lets became popular under Browns destruction of pensions policy. It might be the end of an era for many higher rate payers. But for those who have inherited ('my wife's mother's old flat'), or buy for cash and many low rate payers the situation is different. But it is claimed that the current tax relief is worth £5bn. Will those losing £15bn of welfare see that as an unfair change?? (My family have a handful of BTLs between them.)
It won't solve the housing shortage though, and cause further problems. 'Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more. One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. ...... “My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.'
Will BTL landlords join the Conservative party so that they can vote out Osborne in the 2016/7 Leadership vote? Osborne unfortunately does have some behaviours similar to Brown.
It won't solve the housing shortage though, and cause further problems. 'Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more. One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. ...... “My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.'
Will BTL landlords join the Conservative party so that they can vote out Osborne in the 2016/7 Leadership vote? Osborne unfortunately does have some behaviours similar to Brown.
Only applies if (1) they think it will make a difference to policy 2017-20 and (2) he makes it to the final two anyway.
Since (1) isn't going to happen and (2) is less than certain, they would be better off waiting for a chance to get rid of him another way. There's this thing called a General Election which you can take part in for free. It used to be all the rage for doing down your opponents before Miliband decided it was more sporting to offer you a chance to screw them up between times as well.
Now, if they voted against the Conservatives there, they could bring back a Labour government which as we all know does tax relief for landlords and big sums of public money to the banks so they can lend it out to property speculators. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't vote that way last time...
True - this poll gives Corbyn a low base from which he should be able to improve.
But surely everyone will be looking at the actual poll ratings - if Lab is 7% or 8% behind that is going to look terrible, even if it is an improvement on being 14% behind.
I think the London Mayoral election could be pivotal - Jowell would be a very hot favourite to win but if Lab choose Khan and Lab is say 7% behind nationally then Khan will be favourite to lose and if Con does win that could well be very tricky indeed for Corbyn.
It won't solve the housing shortage though, and cause further problems. 'Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more. One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. ...... “My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.'
Will BTL landlords join the Conservative party so that they can vote out Osborne in the 2016/7 Leadership vote? Osborne unfortunately does have some behaviours similar to Brown.
Only applies if (1) they think it will make a difference to policy 2017-20 and (2) he makes it to the final two anyway. Since (1) isn't going to happen and (2) is less than certain, they would be better off waiting for a chance to get rid of him another way. There's this thing called a General Election which you can take part in for free. It used to be all the rage for doing down your opponents before Miliband decided it was more sporting to offer you a chance to screw them up between times as well. .....
By joining their local Association they can influence their MP and ameliorate the terms and block Osborne getting to the final two.
Polls taken after the bill was passed and enacted. So Osborne was correct in saying it was controversial. It is now not.
The ICM poll was taken in December 2012, before the act was passed.
Populus also polled in 2012, asking:
''Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships'' They found 65% of people agreed, and 27% disagreed with 8% saying don’t know. They also asked whether people agreed with the statement that “Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples” which was agreed with by 76% of people. The tables make it unclear whether the order of the statements was rotated, or whether they were asked in the order presented with the marriage question first.
You linked a poll from 2014 in your original post. If you look at the summary, you'll find support was typically ~50%, immediately prior to passing. Before there was even less support.
I know I linked a poll from 2014; that's why I pointed out the ICM poll was done before the act was passed; which showed similar figures to the 2014 poll. The ICM poll was also linked in my originally post as well. As I said before, the polls I posted point to a vast majority of the public being pro-gay marriage, with figures going above 60% in the year before it was past.
Support was typically over 50% btw, usually between 52% - 55%. As far back as 2004, there was polling which showed over 50% thought that gay marriage should be recognised. In June 2012, YouGov did a poll, which showed 71% in favour of gay marriage, and two polls in December showed support around the 55% figure. As far back as 2010, in Scotland according to the Scottish Attitudes Survey, 61% supported gay marriage. Even in 2009, a Times poll by Populus showed 61% of the public agreeing that 'Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.'
If I take out a mortgage to live (and not let) can you tell me what the tax relief is? I'll help you out - zero. Buy to lets became popular under Browns destruction of pensions policy. It might be the end of an era for many higher rate payers. But for those who have inherited ('my wife's mother's old flat'), or buy for cash and many low rate payers the situation is different. But it is claimed that the current tax relief is worth £5bn. Will those losing £15bn of welfare see that as an unfair change?? (My family have a handful of BTLs between them.)
Who gets tax relief on BTL. I still have my old flat and get zero relief and hounded by HMRC to explain every penny even though I make zilch out of it.
Nigel Farage is trying to block Suzanne Evans from becoming Ukip candidate for Mayor of London with a covert campaign to install a less threatening, loyal party colleague in her place, sources have told Coffee House.
Don't see what qualifies Suzanne Evans to be a good candidate for the London Mayoralty. Not from London, doesn't live in London...
I think people only praise her so highly as a alternative way of slighting Farage.. I cant think what she has done to be so highly thought of by non kippers
Peter Whittle would be the best choice for UKIP I reckon.
(I wrote that without reading the article by the way!)
Evans' chief asset is putting the UKIP case well on the TV circuit and looking and sounding reasonable. I'd assume she might help broaden the party's appeal.
I agree with you that she's not obviously a Mayoral candidate but one way or another UKIP need to sort all these briefings out or they're going to miss a very big post-Corbyn opportunity.
I have met Suzanne and she is good company, but her media performances haven't struck me as particularly impressive. Whittle is from London, did very well as candidate in a London constituency (Eltham), speaks nicely and writes very well on social issues in London. Seems the obvious candidate to me
Obvious to you huh? Give me a break. So why not have a vote on it then? Is there something wrong with letting the local membership vote on the choice? Oh yes Saint Nigel may not like it.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
Nigel Farage is trying to block Suzanne Evans from becoming Ukip candidate for Mayor of London with a covert campaign to install a less threatening, loyal party colleague in her place, sources have told Coffee House.
Don't see what qualifies Suzanne Evans to be a good candidate for the London Mayoralty. Not from London, doesn't live in London...
I think people only praise her so highly as a alternative way of slighting Farage.. I cant think what she has done to be so highly thought of by non kippers
Peter Whittle would be the best choice for UKIP I reckon.
(I wrote that without reading the article by the way!)
Evans' chief asset is putting the UKIP case well on the TV circuit and looking and sounding reasonable. I'd assume she might help broaden the party's appeal.
I agree with you that she's not obviously a Mayoral candidate but one way or another UKIP need to sort all these briefings out or they're going to miss a very big post-Corbyn opportunity.
I have met Suzanne and she is good company, but her media performances haven't struck me as particularly impressive. Whittle is from London, did very well as candidate in a London constituency (Eltham), speaks nicely and writes very well on social issues in London. Seems the obvious candidate to me
Obvious to you huh? Give me a break. So why not have a vote on it then? Is there something wrong with letting the local membership vote on the choice? Oh yes Saint Nigel may not like it.
If I take out a mortgage to live (and not let) can you tell me what the tax relief is? I'll help you out - zero. Buy to lets became popular under Browns destruction of pensions policy. It might be the end of an era for many higher rate payers. But for those who have inherited ('my wife's mother's old flat'), or buy for cash and many low rate payers the situation is different. But it is claimed that the current tax relief is worth £5bn. Will those losing £15bn of welfare see that as an unfair change?? (My family have a handful of BTLs between them.)
One core issue is that because Osbo has broken for landlords the basic principle that tax is charged on income-costs=profit, and put the tax on costs, there is no reason why he can't take the other 20% away as well in a few years time.
Stangely, I think that we will be the only (or perhaps one of two) country in the G7 where LLs won't get tax relief on finance costs.
The Tories may not be hit significantly with votes; they may be with lost contributions, as they have been schmoozing larger LLs for years.
I actually think that letter does come across as anti-Semitic. The link suggested Jewish critics of Islam were under the influence of a foreign nation based on nothing more than the ethnicity of the critics.
Polls taken after the bill was passed and enacted. So Osborne was correct in saying it was controversial. It is now not.
The ICM poll was taken in December 2012, before the act was passed.
Populus also polled in 2012, asking:
''Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships'' They found 65% of people agreed, and 27% disagreed with 8% saying don’t know. They also asked whether people agreed with the statement that “Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples” which was agreed with by 76% of people. The tables make it unclear whether the order of the statements was rotated, or whether they were asked in the order presented with the marriage question first.
You linked a poll from 2014 in your original post. If you look at the summary, you'll find support was typically ~50%, immediately prior to passing. Before there was even less support.
I know I linked a poll from 2014; that's why I pointed out the ICM poll was done before the act was passed; which showed similar figures to the 2014 poll. The ICM poll was also linked in my originally post as well. As I said before, the polls I posted point to a vast majority of the public being pro-gay marriage, with figures going above 60% in the year before it was past.
Support was typically over 50% btw, usually between 52% - 55%. As far back as 2004, there was polling which showed over 50% thought that gay marriage should be recognised. In June 2012, YouGov did a poll, which showed 71% in favour of gay marriage, and two polls in December showed support around the 55% figure. As far back as 2010, in Scotland according to the Scottish Attitudes Survey, 61% supported gay marriage. Even in 2009, a Times poll by Populus showed 61% of the public agreeing that 'Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.'
Apologies that I missed the 2012 poll in your original post. You can also find polls which show support as low as 43% in 2010 and 2012. So I think ~50% is a reasonable assumption. Still, I think it was reasonably controversial, given there wasn't overwhelming support for it.
I actually think that letter does come across as anti-Semitic. The link suggested Jewish critics of Islam were under the influence of a foreign nation based on nothing more than the ethnicity of the critics.
It is interesting to note that no less a person than Owen Jones wrote a pretty strong article saying that actually, there is anti-semitism underlying at least some of the anti-Israeli movement and that it needs to be met head on.
Yes, you get to choose what one of next Sunday's thread is about.
You can choose from the following shortlist
1) AV 2) Electoral reform 3) Scottish Independence 4) AV 5) Does FPTP cause Global Warming.
Edit, not this Sunday, Sunday the 6th of September.
Number 3 for me
I am with you on that M. G.. I used to enjoy the old Sunday mornings on here arguing about Scottish independence. However, you weren't as nasty in those days, so if we are to have a rerun you must at least be more inventive in your insults.
P.S. As regards the flat you let out and the harassment you get from HMRC, may I respectfully suggest you need a better accountant. It may well grieve you to pay for a chap to do what you think you can do yourself but a good accountant pays for himself.
Yes, you get to choose what one of next Sunday's thread is about.
You can choose from the following shortlist
1) AV 2) Electoral reform 3) Scottish Independence 4) AV 5) Does FPTP cause Global Warming.
Edit, not this Sunday, Sunday the 6th of September.
Number 3 for me
Most unusual for @malcolmg as all he does on PB is complete number two.
If only you could reach my exalted level rather than being a senile pie muncher?
If I ever reached your "exalted level" I need to limbo dance under the sewers.
Sad when old buffers are reduced to bumping their gums, stick to impressing fools, you have a chance there. Next you will be trying to tell me you are Scottish and make pies instead of just porkie pies.
It won't solve the housing shortage though, and cause further problems. 'Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more. One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. ...... “My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.'
Will BTL landlords join the Conservative party so that they can vote out Osborne in the 2016/7 Leadership vote? Osborne unfortunately does have some behaviours similar to Brown.
Only applies if (1) they think it will make a difference to policy 2017-20 and (2) he makes it to the final two anyway. Since (1) isn't going to happen and (2) is less than certain, they would be better off waiting for a chance to get rid of him another way. There's this thing called a General Election which you can take part in for free. It used to be all the rage for doing down your opponents before Miliband decided it was more sporting to offer you a chance to screw them up between times as well. .....
By joining their local Association they can influence their MP and ameliorate the terms and block Osborne getting to the final two.
Hardly. But any tory member can vote on the final two. And good luck to whoever that is. If you want to sweat blood over it from now and until then, good luck to you too.
Yes, you get to choose what one of next Sunday's thread is about.
You can choose from the following shortlist
1) AV 2) Electoral reform 3) Scottish Independence 4) AV 5) Does FPTP cause Global Warming.
Edit, not this Sunday, Sunday the 6th of September.
Number 3 for me
I am with you on that M. G.. I used to enjoy the old Sunday mornings on here arguing about Scottish independence. However, you weren't as nasty in those days, so if we are to have a rerun you must at least be more inventive in your insults.
P.S. As regards the flat you let out and the harassment you get from HMRC, may I respectfully suggest you need a better accountant. It may well grieve you to pay for a chap to do what you think you can do yourself but a good accountant pays for himself.
Thanks Hurst, have to say I am only unkind in reply to people who are nasty. You will note that with reasonable people like yourself I am very pleasant. I do believe in treating people as they treat me. Jack has long held a grudge against me , does not like the fact that I know how big a fake he is.
Yes, you get to choose what one of next Sunday's thread is about.
You can choose from the following shortlist
1) AV 2) Electoral reform 3) Scottish Independence 4) AV 5) Does FPTP cause Global Warming.
Edit, not this Sunday, Sunday the 6th of September.
Number 3 for me
I'd like to read 5 though.
I'm voting 6 - Pot Luck. Even if it is "Why History Will Regard Gordon Brown as the Political Titan Straddling the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries"....
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
You don't see that happening? Well, you wouldn't really would you? Osborne could announce a budget written by Gordon Brown himself and you would still be unhappy with it and claim it's a typical Tory measure that will hurt the poor and vulnerable.
The effect on GCT receipts of the new BTL landlord tax measures are out of the Brown playbook. They are so complex that only now, months later, are people starting to work out what the effect will be and they are due to be phased in years hence so that when they do hit people complaining can be written off as wanting to shout about old and settled policy.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
I actually think that letter does come across as anti-Semitic. The link suggested Jewish critics of Islam were under the influence of a foreign nation based on nothing more than the ethnicity of the critics.
Despite ample evidence of cyber-propaganda, directed from Israel? So some Jews certainly are agents of a foreign power, in that respect.
Reading the last thread, I have to laugh at the excerpt as to why Osborne is 'setting the agenda'. He says gay marriage was controversial. Among, whom is exactly? Not a vast majority of the public, but his own party who apparently being so pro-equality voted in large numbers against the act. Osborne isn't anywhere close to establishing a political consensus among all parties for a lower welfare bill either - not in the least, because how low the bill actually will be is questionable. As I said last night, a large chalk of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and pension-related benefits. Yet pension benefits aren't being cut.
I bet Gordon Brown thought his ever-expanding state would last forever as well.
The public pay in over their lifetimes to get their state pensions. The state pension is legally obliged to be paid out from the contributions paid in and a pool of money has to be maintained to smooth out the ups and downs of the ins and outs.
Pensions are not welfare. Pensions amount to about £150bn, The welfare bill is about £55bn.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
Should be something in here if you have the patience to look through it (I don't, not tonight).
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
Are you going to nominate Philip Davies for the leadership xD ?!
Yes, you get to choose what one of next Sunday's thread is about.
You can choose from the following shortlist
1) AV 2) Electoral reform 3) Scottish Independence 4) AV 5) Does FPTP cause Global Warming.
Edit, not this Sunday, Sunday the 6th of September.
Number 3 for me
I am with you on that M. G.. I used to enjoy the old Sunday mornings on here arguing about Scottish independence. However, you weren't as nasty in those days, so if we are to have a rerun you must at least be more inventive in your insults.
P.S. As regards the flat you let out and the harassment you get from HMRC, may I respectfully suggest you need a better accountant. It may well grieve you to pay for a chap to do what you think you can do yourself but a good accountant pays for himself.
Looks like there'll be yet more LibDem Lords, having been rejected by the electorate in May, the LibDems boasting about opposition to the Tories from an unelected H of L, speaks volumes about how far the party has fallen:
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
Mr. Betting, Osborne has no chance of taking the leadership in my view. He is too much of the political chancellor in the Brown mould and tries to control too much from his fastness in the Treasury. He is also, from my reading, trying to control too many people rather too obviously. He forgets I think that each time he favours X over Y he might make an ally of X but will alienate Y. Furthermore X is not in the long run likely to be grateful - as Humphrey put it, "... [in politics] gratitude is the lively expectation of favours that are to be received".
Osborne may, as others have suggested, be content to play the puppeteer and see one of his proteges take the throne, whilst he remains the power behind it. I don't know and don't claim to be able to read his motivations. However, if that is his aim then I think he is being optimistic and that his power will wane very quickly when Cameron enters his lame duck phase.
@HurstLlama I'm just saying that I don't see them gaining support from Generation Rent. Just like I doubt the Northern Powerhouse isn't going to transform Tory fortunes in the North. Really, what needs to happen is actually buying a home needs to become more affordable. I'm also not a fan of Gordon Brown's budgets, I have to say.
Apologies that I missed the 2012 poll in your original post. You can also find polls which show support as low as 43% in 2010 and 2012. So I think ~50% is a reasonable assumption. Still, I think it was reasonably controversial, given there wasn't overwhelming support for it.
You can find those polls, but they are generally anomalies - certainly by 2012 support was over 50%.
On it being controversial, well I think we can say practically most things government does is controversial, then. Only on immigration have I seen 70%+ of the public consistently have xyz opinion. On most things, from Labour's involvement in the deficit, welfare reform, and so on majorities have hit around the 40% - 49% mark, and sometimes 50%. Generally, I'd say controversial is when the public is split on an issue.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
...
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
CGT -- Due on the sale of an asset that has increased in value there will be a tax. At the same time the tax due after death IHT due to your own house value - your own personal house - is being cut.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
Are you going to nominate Philip Davies for the leadership xD ?!
Reading the last thread, I have to laugh at the excerpt as to why Osborne is 'setting the agenda'. He says gay marriage was controversial. Among, whom is exactly? Not a vast majority of the public, but his own party who apparently being so pro-equality voted in large numbers against the act. Osborne isn't anywhere close to establishing a political consensus among all parties for a lower welfare bill either - not in the least, because how low the bill actually will be is questionable. As I said last night, a large chalk of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and pension-related benefits. Yet pension benefits aren't being cut.
I bet Gordon Brown thought his ever-expanding state would last forever as well.
The public pay in over their lifetimes to get their state pensions. The state pension is legally obliged to be paid out from the contributions paid in and a pool of money has to be maintained to smooth out the ups and downs of the ins and outs.
Pensions are not welfare. Pensions amount to about £150bn, The welfare bill is about £55bn.
The state pension is generally included in the welfare total, even by the Daily Mail.
The public also over their working life pay taxes, and therefore contribute to welfare payments such as housing benefit, tax credits, JSA, that they may need to claim one day.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
Are you going to nominate Philip Davies for the leadership xD ?!
Yes, you get to choose what one of next Sunday's thread is about.
You can choose from the following shortlist
1) AV 2) Electoral reform 3) Scottish Independence 4) AV 5) Does FPTP cause Global Warming.
Edit, not this Sunday, Sunday the 6th of September.
Number 3 for me
I am with you on that M. G.. I used to enjoy the old Sunday mornings on here arguing about Scottish independence. However, you weren't as nasty in those days, so if we are to have a rerun you must at least be more inventive in your insults.
P.S. As regards the flat you let out and the harassment you get from HMRC, may I respectfully suggest you need a better accountant. It may well grieve you to pay for a chap to do what you think you can do yourself but a good accountant pays for himself.
Excellent PS, Mr Llama.
Thank you, Mr. Cole. There used to be a saying in the legal world that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. The same, I think, goes for the world of money. Anyone who is not strictly on PAYE and who does not have a carefully selected accountant is doing him/herself no favours and is almost certainly out of pocket.
HMG could solve the problem and make life much fairer for everyone if they would massively simplify out stupidly complex tax code. That is most unlikely to happen though and it certainly will not all the time Osborne is at the Treasury - like Brown before him he seems to delight in introducing ever more complicated measures.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
Are you going to nominate Philip Davies for the leadership xD ?!
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
Hopefully it will cost Osborne the Leadership. I wonder what % of Conservative MPs make money as a landlord? Any stats out there?
Should be something in here if you have the patience to look through it (I don't, not tonight).
Thanks, had a look at a quick sample and found 60% of MPs with a rental benefit. If that rate did apply to the Conservative MPs and IF half have a mortgage on the rental property then we could be looking at 30% of the parliamentary Conservative MPs suffering a financial hit from Osborne........
Worth the while of a hack that is short of an article for tomorrow running the numbers...
A former Green Party councillor has defended his hobby - as a big game hunter.
Defiant Ben Wightman, 27, has proudly posted trophy photos of himself next to a series of animals he has shot in South Africa.
The controversial images - on his publicly-open Facebook page - show a grinning Wightman, rifle in hand, crouched beside a host of dead animals, including two antelopes, a bloodied warthog, an ostrich, buffalo and a zebra.
Actually, they are, in the shape of a higher retirement age.
That isn't going to affect current-pensioners, who in large numbers vote Tory. Instead, it'll most likely affect young people, and middle-aged people - so really a cut of their future benefits.
I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
I don't see that happening.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
CGT -- Due on the sale of an asset that has increased in value there will be a tax. At the same time the tax due after death IHT due to your own house value - your own personal house - is being cut.
CGT will be impacting more people faster than the IHT change. Anyone know what extra CGT gains the OBR think will come from this change?
>>I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
>>He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
>>Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
>>Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
>I don't see that happening.
Could you focus that - which bits do you mean?
I think he's also dampening down wild use of the new pension freedoms for people to go into Buy to Let. Financial advisers won't go out on that sort of limb in the current mega-compensation culture, because pensioners do not come under the "sophisticated investor" category.
I think he's also looking to free up the London market a little, because he only gets the CGT windfall if people have to sell.
There will be some compromise because it is a hell of a campaign being put on, but it will be a carefully crafted compromise.
I could see mileage in, for example, as a one off LLs selling up having their CGT bill reduced by say 1/2 if they used half of that saving to sell the property to the existing tenants at a reduced price by fudnnig the deposit to get them on one of the Govt schemes. GO likes win-win-win.
Comments
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
I meant interchangeably by historians, not the Iranians per se.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11816720/Death-of-buy-to-let-landlords-wake-up-to-Osbornes-150pc-tax.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM44560&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Pfi_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_Pfi_New_2015_08_26&utm_campaign=DM44560
Just seen a shocking video recorded by the Virginia gunman as he carried out the shooting. He posted it on Facebook apparently although it's on lots of other sites as well.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/04/mad_mcafee/
"Society cannot function if everyone knows everything about everyone else," McAfee sagely noted, explaining that if two parties have contradictory beliefs it is a natural human instinct to try and settle those differences, which leads to conflict. If those parties are unaware of their differing beliefs, however, this conflict has no room in which to take place. It is, in McAfee's view, essential for civilisation: "Privacy creates a barrier through which conflict is stifled."
If Alexander were Greek, explain the shunning of Eumenes of Cardia by the Diadochi on the basis of his being Greek, rather than Macedonian.
Edited extra bit: also, Hellenic and Greek aren't synonymous. The English monarchy once spoke French, but French they were not.
You must try harded next time. The answer, as any ful knows, is 46
I bet Gordon Brown thought his ever-expanding state would last forever as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34063087
Shooter reportedly still alive after shooting himself.
Blamed 'racism' for his spree, not the fact he was a f*cked-up loser...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/aug/26/virginia-reporter-cameraman-shot-dead
'Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more.
One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. If he converted the property into two units he could increase the current rent to cover the tax. The council would have to rehouse the family, he said, “and there is already an acute shortage of housing in that area”.
Another landlord described a £110,000 property, on which there is a £68,000 mortgage, let to an elderly couple at “about two thirds of the going market rent”. It generates an annual £1,100 profit, which would fall to £370 after the tax change.
“The property needs a new boiler, which would wipe out profits for years,” the landlord said.
“My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.'
So why not have a vote on it then? Is there something wrong with letting the local membership vote on the choice? Oh yes Saint Nigel may not like it.
If I had a spreadsheet, you could do a sum based on "is the gap between the winning party and Labour in a given seat smaller than the number of voters not voting"
I have a hunch that most of the seats with the lowest turnouts, they already hold so a great deal of those votes will stack up in places they've already won - in 2010, the places with < 50 % turnout were Manchester Central, Leeds Central, Birmingham Ladywood, Glasgow North East, Blackley & Broughton and Thirsk & Malton - 4 Labour, 1 SNP and 1 Con.
Have those in the industry just given up on the idea that they might be able to persuade people that they have got it right this time? The money spent on polling in the last Parliament must have been a record and it is hard to argue other than it was all wasted but this Parliament is looking at a record low if they wait that long to try and get back in the game.
In fact to gain 326 seats on this model *, Labour would need to pick up 5,035,164 non-voters and poll 14,382,468 votes. For the record, even under Blair in 1997 Labour only got 13,518,167 votes!
It's no good basing an election winning strategy on a core vote + returning non-voters. Labour need to win back voters from other parties, and I can't see Corbyn doing that.
* Usual caveats apply, though it's not a million miles from reality!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_claims_to_the_French_throne
He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
The latest poll made by BBC Radio in March 2014 found that 68% of the respondents agreed same-sex marriage should be permitted and 26% opposed it. The research also found that younger people were more likely to support same-sex marriage, with 80% of 18 to 34-year-olds backing it, compared with 44% of over-65s. Of those polled, women were more likely to support same-sex marriage than men, with 75% of women for it compared with 61% of men in favour. [72]
Some 62% of those questioned by pollsters ICM Research for The Guardian said that same-sex couples should be allowed to, against 31% who oppose the change and 7% who did not know.
Suggest the vast majority do.
And as Mr Prasannan notes, the English kings claimed France - so James I and VI is styled in the KJV of the Bible as the king of 'Great Britain, Ireland and France' (which is interesting, as 'Great Britain' didn't officially exist until 1707). Mary and Philip claimed to be joint monarchs of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, Spain and Ireland. Of course, it wasn't just the French one that was a pretty nominal claim!
The latest poll made by BBC Radio in March 2014 found that 68% of the respondents agreed same-sex marriage should be permitted and 26% opposed it. The research also found that younger people were more likely to support same-sex marriage, with 80% of 18 to 34-year-olds backing it, compared with 44% of over-65s. Of those polled, women were more likely to support same-sex marriage than men, with 75% of women for it compared with 61% of men in favour. [72]
Some 62% of those questioned by pollsters ICM Research for The Guardian said that same-sex couples should be allowed to, against 31% who oppose the change and 7% who did not know.
Suggest the vast majority do.
Polls taken after the bill was passed but not enacted. So Osborne was correct in saying it was controversial. It is now not.
I didn't spend ten years at
Evil Medical SchoolImperial College to be called "Mr."!Mr. Lilburne, he was a Norman. The Normans (previously Vikings) conquered Normandy, resisted French attempts to take it back, and nodded convincingly when the French king decided to 'let' them have it forever.
If William were French then a successful French conquest of England would've led to the two countries uniting, as almost happened in the early 13th century when rubbish King John nearly lost the whole country [if my admittedly fuzzy memory is right].
Alexander was the son of an Epirot and a Macedonian, who inherited the throne of Macedon. There were cultural similarities, but Macedon was not Greek, any more than Epirus or Illyria were. This divide was made clear when Eumenes of Cardia was unable to advance his ambitions beyond being a servant because he was Greek and *not* Macedonian [whereas Antigonus, Cassander, Seleucus, Lysimachus, Perdiccas and Ptolemy, being Macedonian, could pursue power].
Both points, I grant, are open to dispute, but those are my views.
(I'm having a truly great 48 hours with giving people the wrong titles, aren't I?)
Populus also polled in 2012, asking:
''Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships''
They found 65% of people agreed, and 27% disagreed with 8% saying don’t know. They also asked whether people agreed with the statement that “Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples” which was agreed with by 76% of people. The tables make it unclear whether the order of the statements was rotated, or whether they were asked in the order presented with the marriage question first.
I'll help you out - zero.
Buy to lets became popular under Browns destruction of pensions policy. It might be the end of an era for many higher rate payers. But for those who have inherited ('my wife's mother's old flat'), or buy for cash and many low rate payers the situation is different. But it is claimed that the current tax relief is worth £5bn. Will those losing £15bn of welfare see that as an unfair change??
(My family have a handful of BTLs between them.)
Since (1) isn't going to happen and (2) is less than certain, they would be better off waiting for a chance to get rid of him another way. There's this thing called a General Election which you can take part in for free. It used to be all the rage for doing down your opponents before Miliband decided it was more sporting to offer you a chance to screw them up between times as well.
Now, if they voted against the Conservatives there, they could bring back a Labour government which as we all know does tax relief for landlords and big sums of public money to the banks so they can lend it out to property speculators. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't vote that way last time...
But surely everyone will be looking at the actual poll ratings - if Lab is 7% or 8% behind that is going to look terrible, even if it is an improvement on being 14% behind.
I think the London Mayoral election could be pivotal - Jowell would be a very hot favourite to win but if Lab choose Khan and Lab is say 7% behind nationally then Khan will be favourite to lose and if Con does win that could well be very tricky indeed for Corbyn.
Support was typically over 50% btw, usually between 52% - 55%. As far back as 2004, there was polling which showed over 50% thought that gay marriage should be recognised. In June 2012, YouGov did a poll, which showed 71% in favour of gay marriage, and two polls in December showed support around the 55% figure. As far back as 2010, in Scotland according to the Scottish Attitudes Survey, 61% supported gay marriage. Even in 2009, a Times poll by Populus showed 61% of the public agreeing that 'Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.'
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/143147/guardian-rejects-complaint-corbyn-letter-was-antisemitic
Stangely, I think that we will be the only (or perhaps one of two) country in the G7 where LLs won't get tax relief on finance costs.
The Tories may not be hit significantly with votes; they may be with lost contributions, as they have been schmoozing larger LLs for years.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/antisemitism-left-racism-israel
Of course he fudged it a bit, but it gave me the rather unusual sensation of agreeing with a lot of what he wrote.
P.S. As regards the flat you let out and the harassment you get from HMRC, may I respectfully suggest you need a better accountant. It may well grieve you to pay for a chap to do what you think you can do yourself but a good accountant pays for himself.
The effect on GCT receipts of the new BTL landlord tax measures are out of the Brown playbook. They are so complex that only now, months later, are people starting to work out what the effect will be and they are due to be phased in years hence so that when they do hit people complaining can be written off as wanting to shout about old and settled policy.
If you bother to read up on what has been introduced, without consultation or warning, mind, you will find that a big increase in CGT receipts is what Osborne has lined up. That is to say he has set in place a big increase in taxes levied on those that are asset rich.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Israels-newest-PR-weapon-The-Internet-Megaphone
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Latest-hasbara-weapon-Army-of-bloggers
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rise-of-digital-diplomacy-could-be-changing-israels-media-image/
Some Jews, on the other hand, are fierce critics of Israel. But it's ludicrous to deny the existence of the other organised group...
Who knows, some may already be among us on PB?
Pensions are not welfare.
Pensions amount to about £150bn, The welfare bill is about £55bn.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/contents1516.htm
http://www.libdemvoice.org/lord-jim-wallace-writes-new-lib-dem-colleagues-will-campaign-with-me-to-reform-house-of-lords-47261.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Osborne may, as others have suggested, be content to play the puppeteer and see one of his proteges take the throne, whilst he remains the power behind it. I don't know and don't claim to be able to read his motivations. However, if that is his aim then I think he is being optimistic and that his power will wane very quickly when Cameron enters his lame duck phase.
On it being controversial, well I think we can say practically most things government does is controversial, then. Only on immigration have I seen 70%+ of the public consistently have xyz opinion. On most things, from Labour's involvement in the deficit, welfare reform, and so on majorities have hit around the 40% - 49% mark, and sometimes 50%. Generally, I'd say controversial is when the public is split on an issue.
At the same time the tax due after death IHT due to your own house value - your own personal house - is being cut.
Labour 'How can it be worse? Nationalisation! Inflation! Wimmin-only carriages!'
The state pension is generally included in the welfare total, even by the Daily Mail.
The public also over their working life pay taxes, and therefore contribute to welfare payments such as housing benefit, tax credits, JSA, that they may need to claim one day.
HMG could solve the problem and make life much fairer for everyone if they would massively simplify out stupidly complex tax code. That is most unlikely to happen though and it certainly will not all the time Osborne is at the Treasury - like Brown before him he seems to delight in introducing ever more complicated measures.
Worth the while of a hack that is short of an article for tomorrow running the numbers...
People may not expect it, but I'm often struck that those councillors I have met tend to be very sane and competent. Can't get a more reasonable selection that that, everyone will be happy.
>>I expect Osbo to be willing to damage current pensioners, on the high probability that the Tories will get 10 or maybe 15 more years and that is time to recover.
>>He's already done it with the captive bullet he has put into lettuce sandwiches .. sorry ... the PRS where people have a decent pension and some rental income.
>>Many - esp. small business people and private sector - went into BTL as a strategy after Gordon took £5bn a year or so out from 1997. Then the income from private pensions plummeted as demographics changed and then the stock market suffered.
>>Also for Osbo I think it is part of a pitch for a big CGT windfall (10s of billions) over 10 years and a strategic move for support amongst Generation Rent.
>I don't see that happening.
Could you focus that - which bits do you mean?
I think he's also dampening down wild use of the new pension freedoms for people to go into Buy to Let. Financial advisers won't go out on that sort of limb in the current mega-compensation culture, because pensioners do not come under the "sophisticated investor" category.
I think he's also looking to free up the London market a little, because he only gets the CGT windfall if people have to sell.
There will be some compromise because it is a hell of a campaign being put on, but it will be a carefully crafted compromise.
I could see mileage in, for example, as a one off LLs selling up having their CGT bill reduced by say 1/2 if they used half of that saving to sell the property to the existing tenants at a reduced price by fudnnig the deposit to get them on one of the Govt schemes. GO likes win-win-win.