I wonder why only now in opposition and facing electoral wipeout the Don Brinds of this world and Labour in general are now only considering this rather than when they had those massive Majorities under Blair all based on the original system and non representative vote shares?
Am I right thinking if we leave the EU but are in the EEA, EEA citizens can still come over here and work. The free movement of people will still exist ?
Free movement of "workers" under the EEA. Easier to chuck out criminals and malingerers I believe
I've always been sceptical about compulsory voting, since what it does is water down the impact of people who are interested and taking a bit of trouble with the addition of a lot of people who don't much care and may be easily swayed by trivia - a Sun editorial, a populist speech. But I do think it's problematic that we are moving steadily towards making it harder to stay on the register and harder to get young people involved at all. Compulsory voting with a NOTA option seems a reasonable possibility to me, and as others have said I doubt if it would always benefit Labour.
Am I right thinking if we leave the EU but are in the EEA, EEA citizens can still come over here and work. The free movement of people will still exist ?
Yes, exactly the same EU directive applies, including the right to come here and study, to look for work for a reasonable time, and to come here as of right if one is self-sufficient. Spouses and other family members as well. EEA citizens can't come here in order to live on benefits, but neither can EU citizens.
Free health service would be a benefit right? I worked with Spaniards in London and they just loved that. Filled their boots with it as they had to pay for it at home. Not sure how that worked under the charge system but they didn't personally pay.
If you are already 65+ or collecting a pension you're quids in.
If you are in your 30s, 40s or early 50s you are fair game.
If you're already collecting your pension, then you are not quids in as a result of Osborne's changes (unless you have retired very recently). The pension freedoms which are really quite dramatic only applied from April 2015. It's those coming up to retirement who benefit. Anyone who retired before got shafted by pitiful annuity rates.
Come on Richard, that's a bit of a non sequitur. The triple lock and protected pensioner goodies on TV licences, bus passes and winter fuel allowance have been in since 2010 (and some before)
Then there's the pensioners ISA, and now the extra pensions freedoms, which are extra cherries on an already rather tasty cake.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Middle Class Strivers 0 Fat Cats 3
Sorry but there is a massive deficit still to close and the money has to come from somewhere. Buy to let landlords are affected yes but someone has to be and so are plenty of other people including those on welfare (rightly in my Tory eyes). Some of the buy to let changes that have exercised people (like increasing Stamp Duty) don't affect those you just mentioned much at all since Stamp Duty is paid when you buy not when you sell. If they've already bought a buy to let property then the new Stamp Duty bands won't affect you.
If you're looking to make an investment in the future then you know about Stamp Duty in advance and can take that into account when making your decisions. If you decide to invest in starting up a business and hiring people instead due to the reductions in Corporation Tax and National Insurance rather than bricks and mortar due to the increase in Stamp Duty and reduction in tax allowances then that could be a good thing.
Free health service would be a benefit right? I worked with Spaniards in London and they just loved that. Filled their boots with it as they had to pay for it at home. Not sure how that worked under the charge system but they didn't personally pay.
It's supposed to be recharged to the country of origin. Whether it is or not in practice is another matter (although the government has been tightening this up). But it's the same for all EEA countries, so wouldn't change if we left the EU but signed up to an EEA-style deal.
Am I right thinking if we leave the EU but are in the EEA, EEA citizens can still come over here and work. The free movement of people will still exist ?
Yes. The Swiss tried to rejig their equivalent deal package and were told they couldn't pick and choose - either they had to accept free movement, or they had to forget the other deals. They're currently having another think.
Am I right thinking if we leave the EU but are in the EEA, EEA citizens can still come over here and work. The free movement of people will still exist ?
We can put in place some Norway type restrictions I think, Mr Tyndall knows his stuff about those.
As I have said before when this discussion comes up, the situation now is not the same as it was when I was working in Norway. I have not looked at the detail recently but I certainly wouldn't argue with Richard N that there is no material difference between Norway and the EU as far as EEA migration is concerned these days.
The only caveat to that is that I have not looked at what practical differences there are, only at the legal situation. Some of what I have seen happening recently in various northern European countries is clearly in breach of some of the EU rules so I am not sure what that means in practice any more.
I wonder why only now in opposition and facing electoral wipeout the Don Brinds of this world and Labour in general are now only considering this rather than when they had those massive Majorities under Blair all based on the original system and non representative vote shares?
Oh wait a minute......
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the 18-24 age group being simultaneously the most likely to vote Labour (overwhelmingly) and the most likely not to vote.
Except the logic may be a fallacy. Those who are not currently likely to vote may well not vote for any of the major parties if compelled to vote for someone.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Come on Richard, that's a bit of a non sequitur. The triple lock and protected pensioner goodies on TV licences, bus passes and winter fuel allowance have been in since 2010 (and some before)
Then there's the pensioners ISA, and now the extra pensions freedoms, which are extra cherries on an already rather tasty cake.
Sure, pensioner benefits have been protected. I wouldn't get too het up on the triple lock, given that pensions are so low in the first place - we are not exactly talking about wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, most pensioners are poor.
My point was that you need to look at the whole picture. He has made changes which will benefit future pensioners.
I don't believe that more than a tiny number don't vote because the EU is a bit remote. Few are seriously concerned about the EU as an issue at all and for those who are, there are candidates standing who offer policy solutions to that problem.
However, I suspect you know that.
Does this tired old nag really have to be trotted out all the time ?
The number one issue for voters by some margin is immigration, that's is absolutely an EU issue, our ability to provide services in the NHS and schools are likewise linked to immigration and hence the EU, as is housing. People aren't fussed by the EU, but they are pretty damn exercised by a number of things that are directly caused or in the purview of the EU.
What kind of immigration though?
If people are OK with (white) immigrants from across Europe but against immigrants coming here from the Middle East and Africa then that is not a European issue as much as some may want to make it one.
Come on Richard, that's a bit of a non sequitur. The triple lock and protected pensioner goodies on TV licences, bus passes and winter fuel allowance have been in since 2010 (and some before)
Then there's the pensioners ISA, and now the extra pensions freedoms, which are extra cherries on an already rather tasty cake.
Sure, pensioner benefits have been protected. I wouldn't get too het up on the triple lock, given that pensions are so low in the first place - we are not exactly talking about wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, most pensioners are poor.
My point was that you need to look at the whole picture. He has made changes which will benefit future pensioners.
I'd be amazed if the triple lock is still in place when I'm collecting my pension
Well, Cameron promised migration in the tens of thousands. He hasn't delivered.
Whose fault is that?
Either you argue he was serious but doesn't have the tools, or you argue that he had the tools but wouldn't (or couldn't) take the steps necessary to meet it.
Personally, I think if he had all the tools and levers and had been successful a lot of UKIPers (not all) would still be with the Tories, but who am I to say.
There's a third viewpoint that says it was a foolhardy promise to make in the first place (and, again, personally I think Cameron was grossly optimistic and thought he could bring it down to c.100k just by adjusting non-EU rules and was thrown when the eurozone went off the boil, but trapped by the promise - it's clear he doesn't want to go much further) but if i about difficult decisions between economics and social issues then that's what the political process is supposed to allow you to judge.
Provided those promises and judgements are both made and undertaken in good faith.
Free health service would be a benefit right? I worked with Spaniards in London and they just loved that. Filled their boots with it as they had to pay for it at home. Not sure how that worked under the charge system but they didn't personally pay.
It's supposed to be recharged to the country of origin. Whether it is or not in practice is another matter (although the government has been tightening this up). But it's the same for all EEA countries, so wouldn't change if we left the EU but signed up to an EEA-style deal.
This is one of my bugbears. You are right that EU and EEA countries are supposed to provide free health care under the EHIC. In practice this is often not the case. For example when I was injured several years ago in Norway I was told I would have to pay for my treatment because the EHIC only covered tourists, not those travelling to Norway to work. In the long run it made no difference to me because I always make sure I have insurance but even there it proved difficult initially to claim because the insurance company questioned why I had to pay when it should have been covered by the EHIC.
This is not an isolated incident and I am hearing of plenty of such examples from across the EU/EEA
Was said yesterday that there must have been more to the Waterloo sex assault than we knew and so it turns out to be of this claim merits........
Crucial CCTV footage in a "bizarre" sex assault prosecution had been slowed down by the authorities to give a misleading impression of events, the defence solicitor in the case has revealed. But it can now be disclosed that - to the concern of Mr Pearson's legal team - the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) supplied original CCTV depicting the alleged assault in an amended format which gave a misleading impression of the incident. "The few seconds when my client walked past the alleged victim had been slowed down so it looked like he had more time to commit the alleged actions than he in reality did have. "Instead of one frame per second it was running at one frame every two seconds." Mr Pearson's legal team was forced to hire a specialist CCTV forensic expert to present the CCTV at the correct speed and then
Cameron is scaremongering when he implies Brexit would necessarily lead to a mass invasion of asylum seekers from Calais to Kent because the current bilateral agreements have nothing to do with the EU.
There is however a risk that France could end the treaty as a “countermeasure” to Britain leaving the EU, but if that occurred it would be two years before it took effect.
It is highly unlikely thatmigrant camps à la the Jungle would be set up in the south-east as new asylum seekers in Britain are either dispersed to Home Office funded accommodation or held in immigration removal centres.
Come on Richard, that's a bit of a non sequitur. The triple lock and protected pensioner goodies on TV licences, bus passes and winter fuel allowance have been in since 2010 (and some before)
Then there's the pensioners ISA, and now the extra pensions freedoms, which are extra cherries on an already rather tasty cake.
Sure, pensioner benefits have been protected. I wouldn't get too het up on the triple lock, given that pensions are so low in the first place - we are not exactly talking about wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, most pensioners are poor.
My point was that you need to look at the whole picture. He has made changes which will benefit future pensioners.
Pensions spending accounts for a huge proportion of government spending.
Whether the state pension is generous or not it is unaffordable on current terms unless other government departments take massive punishment.
I don't believe that more than a tiny number don't vote because the EU is a bit remote. Few are seriously concerned about the EU as an issue at all and for those who are, there are candidates standing who offer policy solutions to that problem.
However, I suspect you know that.
Does this tired old nag really have to be trotted out all the time ?
The number one issue for voters by some margin is immigration, that's is absolutely an EU issue, our ability to provide services in the NHS and schools are likewise linked to immigration and hence the EU, as is housing. People aren't fussed by the EU, but they are pretty damn exercised by a number of things that are directly caused or in the purview of the EU.
What kind of immigration though?
If people are OK with (white) immigrants from across Europe but against immigrants coming here from the Middle East and Africa then that is not a European issue as much as some may want to make it one.
Skilled immigration,white,black,brown or alien
Sorry Thompson,the next paragraph of my post has been taken out.
I was mentioning that my mate got racially abused on Saturday night by gang of certain race of people from Eastern Europe and we don't need that sort of unskilled immigration.
Sorry but there is a massive deficit still to close and the money has to come from somewhere. Buy to let landlords are affected yes but someone has to be and so are plenty of other people including those on welfare (rightly in my Tory eyes). Some of the buy to let changes that have exercised people (like increasing Stamp Duty) don't affect those you just mentioned much at all since Stamp Duty is paid when you buy not when you sell. If they've already bought a buy to let property then the new Stamp Duty bands won't affect you.
That stamp duty might not affect you, but the inability to offset all costs against income for tax purposes is going to be hideously expensive, and is currently subject to an ECJ challenge so your love for all things EU might take another knock shortly
Regarding the massive deficit, that actually cutting some stuff, rather than just "cutting the rate of increase" might be a good start. Public spending is almost 10% per annum higher now that in was in 2010, in real terms.
Sorry but there is a massive deficit still to close and the money has to come from somewhere. Buy to let landlords are affected yes but someone has to be and so are plenty of other people including those on welfare (rightly in my Tory eyes). Some of the buy to let changes that have exercised people (like increasing Stamp Duty) don't affect those you just mentioned much at all since Stamp Duty is paid when you buy not when you sell. If they've already bought a buy to let property then the new Stamp Duty bands won't affect you.
That stamp duty might not affect you, but the inability to offset all costs against income for tax purposes is going to be hideously expensive, and is currently subject to an ECJ challenge so your love for all things EU might take another knock shortly
Regarding the massive deficit, that actually cutting some stuff, rather than just "cutting the rate of increase" might be a good start. Public spending is almost 10% per annum higher now that in was in 2010, in real terms.
Osborne won't do it. Cutting spending will piss off more voters, than walloping Striver BTL landlords for more tax. In the same way that hitting SpivCo property developers will hurt large party donors. It's all so obvious.
Most of the replies so far have taken pot shots at persons mentioned in the article and the Labour party generally. While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?
A change of voting system so that more people felt their votes counted (STV would probably be best). More emphasis on civics in school would be no bad thing. But mainly it's about getting better and more relevant policies.
Some good suggestions there, I also like Josias' idea for two extra boxes ('None of the Above' and 'Change the Voting System'). Also ISAM's idea of a council tax discount if you vote. Could also give everybody who votes a free music download?
No to the council tax discount. Students are exempt anyway. So what would they be getting a discount on?
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Pensions spending accounts for a huge proportion of government spending.
Whether the state pension is generous or not it is unaffordable on current terms unless other government departments take massive punishment.
And it's going to increase as a proportion of total government spending.
That is exactly why Osborne (and indeed other politicians of all parties) are very keen on encouraging more people to make provision for retirement through saving in pensions. One way of doing that would be to tilt the relief on pension contributions from the very well-off (who are currently the biggest beneficiaries) towards basic-rate taxpayers. Hence the rumoured proposals for a flat rate on income tax relief for pension contributions.
I've no idea whether the rumours are true, but as I've said before I think it would be prudent for higher and top-rate taxpayers to make as much pension contribution before March 6th as they can.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Helen Pidd Twelve men sentenced for sexual exploitation of Keighley teenager. Never seen such badly behaved defendants. https://t.co/YJ07qylksg
Some of the men treated the case as a joke from start to finish. They grinned in the police mugshots taken after their arrests, messed around in the dock, and laughed and waved as they were sent to prison to begin their sentences.
They lied about knowing the girl, despite a number having sent her explicit Facebook messages demanding oral sex. The court heard how Asian men would shout at the white girl in the street, calling her “Randi”, the Urdu word for “slag”.
One defendant, 25-year-old Yasser Kabir, told the girl in front of her grandmother that she could “suck me off”. Kabir was jailed for 20 years for the rape of that girl, and the rape of two others, one aged between six and seven, and the other seven to nine, when he was 13 to 15.
Well, Cameron promised [net im]migration in the tens of thousands. He hasn't delivered.
Whose fault is that?
Either you argue he was serious but doesn't have the tools, or you argue that he had the tools but wouldn't (or couldn't) take the steps necessary to meet it.
Personally, I think if he had all the tools and levers and had been successful a lot of UKIPers (not all) would still be with the Tories, but who am I to say.
There's a third viewpoint that says it was a foolhardy promise to make in the first place (and, again, personally I think Cameron was grossly optimistic and thought he could bring it down to c.100k just by adjusting non-EU rules and was thrown when the eurozone went off the boil, but trapped by the promise - it's clear he doesn't want to go much further) but if i about difficult decisions between economics and social issues then that's what the political process is supposed to allow you to judge.
Provided those promises and judgements are both made and undertaken in good faith.
A mixture.
I think he thought that the reforms would make more impact that they did. Also, the coalition government probably made some difference (rules have changed since the election). But it was a daft pledge that was always a hostage to fortune.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
It's not about if your heart bleeds for them or not, its about if they are going to vote Conservative next time or not.. probably not now. Your attitude tells me all we need to know about the Conservatives being the party of aspirational people. It hasn't been for a long time, it's the party of corporatists and fat cats, that is why it likes the EU so much.
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
The article makes no sense. Why on earth would anyone in their position keep the flat in addition to buying their home?
To rent out to pay off the mortgage as a cheap pension pot.
Basically it is an investment. Buy to let typically happens in the reverse order (family home first, rental property second), but to suggest that they aren't profiting from it, as they themselves say in the article, is laughable.
Looks more like Ted Cruz's campaign team to me actually...
Is he really doing that badly in NH?
I quite like Ted Cruz, he's up against the entire media, the republican machine and a multi-billionaire. I was a bit sad I couldn't enter his gun raffle.
On the Democrats side, I sincerely hope Bernie berns the Ice Queen though I fear the DEM machine will be too strong.
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Any evidence for this? I'm pretty sure they were voting Blue in order to usher in a period of glorious Tory majority government.
Presumably that's a simple mistake and the Gilmore number is actually Cruz's. If so, it's plausible, albeit more generous to Cruz than most recent polls, and poor for Rubio.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
It's not about if your heart bleeds for them or not, its about if they are going to vote Conservative next time or not.. probably not now. Your attitude tells me all we need to know about the Conservatives being the party of aspirational people. It hasn't been for a long time, it's the party of corporatists and fat cats, that is why it likes the EU so much.
Of course they'll vote Tory - these "I won't vote Conservative because xyz" tend to be the first ones to switch at the faintest whiff of gunpowder that will bolt to the ballot box for fear of Corbyn.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
It's not about if your heart bleeds for them or not, its about if they are going to vote Conservative next time or not.. probably not now. Your attitude tells me all we need to know about the Conservatives being the party of aspirational people. It hasn't been for a long time, it's the party of corporatists and fat cats, that is why it likes the EU so much.
I don't think policies should be designed to encourage voting for a particular party, but rather to address problems in the country. One such problem is a lack of housing, and this is an attempt to try and correct that.
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Evidence.
If you wanted a continuation of the coalition, you would have voted for the incumbent coalition party.
Clearly the voters are missing the Lib Dems, that's why the Lib Dems are polling 6% in the polls.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
The article makes no sense. Why on earth would anyone in their position keep the flat in addition to buying their home?
To rent out to pay off the mortgage as a cheap pension pot.
Basically it is an investment. Buy to let typically happens in the reverse order (family home first, rental property second), but to suggest that they aren't profiting from it, as they themselves say in the article, is laughable.
Indeed - and one less flat for another young couple to buy as a first home.
They thought they had a no brainer investment lined up - well they will have to try a bit harder. They could fill up FTSE tracker ISAs for a few years for a tax free return.
I wonder why only now in opposition and facing electoral wipeout the Don Brinds of this world and Labour in general are now only considering this rather than when they had those massive Majorities under Blair all based on the original system and non representative vote shares?
Oh wait a minute......
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the 18-24 age group being simultaneously the most likely to vote Labour (overwhelmingly) and the most likely not to vote.
Except the logic may be a fallacy. Those who are not currently likely to vote may well not vote for any of the major parties if compelled to vote for someone.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that Labour was third in the list of beneficiaries, behind he Greens and say a Pirate party. Fourth if Save The Badgers got their shit together.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Any evidence for this? I'm pretty sure they were voting Blue in order to usher in a period of glorious Tory majority government.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
It's not about if your heart bleeds for them or not, its about if they are going to vote Conservative next time or not.. probably not now. Your attitude tells me all we need to know about the Conservatives being the party of aspirational people. It hasn't been for a long time, it's the party of corporatists and fat cats, that is why it likes the EU so much.
Of course they'll vote Tory - these "I won't vote Conservative because xyz" tend to be the first ones to switch at the faintest whiff of gunpowder that will bolt to the ballot box for fear of Corbyn.
"I love the smell of complacency in the morning, smells like ....."
It means if Corbyn is Jarvis by then, you are screwed.
If Sadiq Khan thinks you can get a mortgage in a day, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
I'm sure a policy of fining 18 - 22 year olds will be incredibly popular.
HSBC do a one day mortgage service.
Have you actually tried it? Gone in at 9:30 am and come out by the end of the day with an actual mortgage offer?
Given all the hoops banks have to go through - KYC and the rest of it - it's just not going to work. Khan was just talking out of his rear end.
My colleague. Appointment in the morning, approved later that day.
A 'lawyer' presumably. These products are great for higher net worth individuals, professionals with easily proven and substantial incomes such as GP's, or MPs like Khan.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
The article makes no sense. Why on earth would anyone in their position keep the flat in addition to buying their home?
To rent out to pay off the mortgage as a cheap pension pot.
Basically it is an investment. Buy to let typically happens in the reverse order (family home first, rental property second), but to suggest that they aren't profiting from it, as they themselves say in the article, is laughable.
Indeed - and one less flat for another young couple to buy as a first home.
They thought they had a no brainer investment lined up - well they will have to try a bit harder. They could fill up FTSE tracker ISAs for a few years for a tax free return.
Which will put more capital available for British companies (All else being equal) instead of removing a home to buy for some other 'striver'.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
The article makes no sense. Why on earth would anyone in their position keep the flat in addition to buying their home?
To rent out to pay off the mortgage as a cheap pension pot.
Basically it is an investment. Buy to let typically happens in the reverse order (family home first, rental property second), but to suggest that they aren't profiting from it, as they themselves say in the article, is laughable.
Indeed - and one less flat for another young couple to buy as a first home.
They thought they had a no brainer investment lined up - well they will have to try a bit harder. They could fill up FTSE tracker ISAs for a few years for a tax free return.
and at the end of the day it is only an additional £5k, which is small compared to the benefits of owning a second property, especially once the mortgage is paid.
Sorry but there is a massive deficit still to close and the money has to come from somewhere. Buy to let landlords are affected yes but someone has to be and so are plenty of other people including those on welfare (rightly in my Tory eyes). Some of the buy to let changes that have exercised people (like increasing Stamp Duty) don't affect those you just mentioned much at all since Stamp Duty is paid when you buy not when you sell. If they've already bought a buy to let property then the new Stamp Duty bands won't affect you.
That stamp duty might not affect you, but the inability to offset all costs against income for tax purposes is going to be hideously expensive, and is currently subject to an ECJ challenge so your love for all things EU might take another knock shortly
Regarding the massive deficit, that actually cutting some stuff, rather than just "cutting the rate of increase" might be a good start. Public spending is almost 10% per annum higher now that in was in 2010, in real terms.
I don't love all things EU and challenging taxes and allowances in the courts is just one of many things I think should be completely outside the EU's jurisdiction, except in the very limited areas where the tax is an EU-related tax (ie VAT). Then again it's not just the EU I can't stand the litigious nature of taking everything to court that seems to be developing challenging in our own courts every decision the government makes too so leaving the EU will not be a panacea.
As for "some cuts". Public spending is higher overall but not in all departments. Some of the biggest areas of spending have been subject to real increases as a matter of deliberate policy, eg the NHS and triple-locked Pensions. Others have increased inevitably, eg interest will almost certainly go up when running a deficit. Spending in many non-protected departments has been cut in real terms. So there have been "some cuts". There could have been more but there could have been less had this government not been in power.
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Any evidence for this? I'm pretty sure they were voting Blue in order to usher in a period of glorious Tory majority government.
Not even 25% of the registered electors, Mr D.
My first point was serious, my second was not. Any evidence for your claim?
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Most? Poor. Very poor.....
They knew exactly what they were voting for when I spoke to hundreds of them in Torbay
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Evidence.
If you wanted a continuation of the coalition, you would have voted for the incumbent coalition party.
Clearly the voters are missing the Lib Dems, that's why the Lib Dems are polling 6% in the polls.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
The article makes no sense. Why on earth would anyone in their position keep the flat in addition to buying their home?
To rent out to pay off the mortgage as a cheap pension pot.
Basically it is an investment. Buy to let typically happens in the reverse order (family home first, rental property second), but to suggest that they aren't profiting from it, as they themselves say in the article, is laughable.
Indeed - and one less flat for another young couple to buy as a first home.
They thought they had a no brainer investment lined up - well they will have to try a bit harder. They could fill up FTSE tracker ISAs for a few years for a tax free return.
and at the end of the day it is only an additional £5k, which is small compared to the benefits of owning a second property, especially once the mortgage is paid.
In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
Most of them now regret it. They thought they were voting for a continuation of the Coalition.
Any evidence for this? I'm pretty sure they were voting Blue in order to usher in a period of glorious Tory majority government.
Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.
What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
It's not about if your heart bleeds for them or not, its about if they are going to vote Conservative next time or not.. probably not now. Your attitude tells me all we need to know about the Conservatives being the party of aspirational people. It hasn't been for a long time, it's the party of corporatists and fat cats, that is why it likes the EU so much.
Of course they'll vote Tory - these "I won't vote Conservative because xyz" tend to be the first ones to switch at the faintest whiff of gunpowder that will bolt to the ballot box for fear of Corbyn.
"I love the smell of complacency in the morning, smells like ....."
It means if Corbyn is Jarvis by then, you are screwed.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
Oh boo hoo - they only have 2 properties , 2 full time incomes plus rent from their extra flat.
My heart is bleeding.
The article makes no sense. Why on earth would anyone in their position keep the flat in addition to buying their home?
To rent out to pay off the mortgage as a cheap pension pot.
Basically it is an investment. Buy to let typically happens in the reverse order (family home first, rental property second), but to suggest that they aren't profiting from it, as they themselves say in the article, is laughable.
Indeed - and one less flat for another young couple to buy as a first home.
They thought they had a no brainer investment lined up - well they will have to try a bit harder. They could fill up FTSE tracker ISAs for a few years for a tax free return.
and at the end of the day it is only an additional £5k, which is small compared to the benefits of owning a second property, especially once the mortgage is paid.
Indeed - what a couple of cry babies.
Except that now they cannot offset the mortgage interest as an expense against tax its dramatically more expensive for them. Meanwhile their corporate competitors self-finance and are completely unaffected by that change in regulations. George hammers the middle classes and keeps his corporate friends safe. Ironically Dave's friends the ECJ will probably strike that down later in the year and he will have to think of someone else to fleece.
Except that now they cannot offset the mortgage interest as an expense against tax its dramatically more expensive for them. Meanwhile their corporate competitors self-finance and are completely unaffected by that change in regulations. George hammers the middle classes and keeps his corporate friends safe. Ironically Dave's friends the ECJ will probably strike that down later in the year and he will have to think of someone else to fleece.
Who are these 'corporate friends'? And why do you think Osborne would want to favour them?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
Maybe they don't know anything and just want to make an easy 5383% annual yield from mugeroonies.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
Maybe they don't know anything and just want to make an easy 5383% annual yield.
Or maybe (and I think this explanation fits the facts quite well) their odds are chosen at random.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
Maybe they don't know anything and just want to make an easy 5383% annual yield.
Or maybe (and I think this explanation fits the facts quite well) their odds are chosen at random?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
Maybe they don't know anything and just want to make an easy 5383% annual yield.
Or maybe (and I think this explanation fits the facts quite well) their odds are chosen at random.
If Sadiq Khan thinks you can get a mortgage in a day, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
I'm sure a policy of fining 18 - 22 year olds will be incredibly popular.
HSBC do a one day mortgage service.
Have you actually tried it? Gone in at 9:30 am and come out by the end of the day with an actual mortgage offer?
Given all the hoops banks have to go through - KYC and the rest of it - it's just not going to work. Khan was just talking out of his rear end.
My colleague. Appointment in the morning, approved later that day.
OK.
Given the hoops banks have go through even to take on a customer, let alone the recent changes which the FCA brought in about mortgages, I find this surprising. But can't gainsay your colleague's experience.
Still, to be pedantic, I imagine your colleague arrived all prepared with all the necessary documentation, information etc and was already a customer of the bank.
On a separate note, I do worry about banks slipping back into some of the business practices which led to so much grief a few years ago.
We're beginning to forget the lessons some us have yet to learn.
Comments
Oh wait a minute......
Then there's the pensioners ISA, and now the extra pensions freedoms, which are extra cherries on an already rather tasty cake.
If you're looking to make an investment in the future then you know about Stamp Duty in advance and can take that into account when making your decisions. If you decide to invest in starting up a business and hiring people instead due to the reductions in Corporation Tax and National Insurance rather than bricks and mortar due to the increase in Stamp Duty and reduction in tax allowances then that could be a good thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp3JGmhLUXc
The only caveat to that is that I have not looked at what practical differences there are, only at the legal situation. Some of what I have seen happening recently in various northern European countries is clearly in breach of some of the EU rules so I am not sure what that means in practice any more.
Except the logic may be a fallacy. Those who are not currently likely to vote may well not vote for any of the major parties if compelled to vote for someone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/12139845/Buying-our-family-home-will-cost-7500-extra-thanks-to-buy-to-let-tax-aimed-at-tycoons.html
Huzzah for the free movement of people.
Middle Class Strivers -2
Fat Cats 3
My point was that you need to look at the whole picture. He has made changes which will benefit future pensioners.
1992 55-64 year olds Con 44%, Lab 35%. 65+ Con 48%, Lab 34%.
1997 Con 36%, Lab 39%. Con 36%, Lab 41%.
2001 Con 39%, Lab 37%. Con 40%, Lab 39%.
2005 Con 39, Lab 31%. Con 41%, Lab 35%.
Well, Cameron promised migration in the tens of thousands. He hasn't delivered.
Whose fault is that?
Either you argue he was serious but doesn't have the tools, or you argue that he had the tools but wouldn't (or couldn't) take the steps necessary to meet it.
Personally, I think if he had all the tools and levers and had been successful a lot of UKIPers (not all) would still be with the Tories, but who am I to say.
There's a third viewpoint that says it was a foolhardy promise to make in the first place (and, again, personally I think Cameron was grossly optimistic and thought he could bring it down to c.100k just by adjusting non-EU rules and was thrown when the eurozone went off the boil, but trapped by the promise - it's clear he doesn't want to go much further) but if i about difficult decisions between economics and social issues then that's what the political process is supposed to allow you to judge.
Provided those promises and judgements are both made and undertaken in good faith.
This is not an isolated incident and I am hearing of plenty of such examples from across the EU/EEA
Crucial CCTV footage in a "bizarre" sex assault prosecution had been slowed down by the authorities to give a misleading impression of events, the defence solicitor in the case has revealed. But it can now be disclosed that - to the concern of Mr Pearson's legal team - the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) supplied original CCTV depicting the alleged assault in an amended format which gave a misleading impression of the incident.
"The few seconds when my client walked past the alleged victim had been slowed down so it looked like he had more time to commit the alleged actions than he in reality did have.
"Instead of one frame per second it was running at one frame every two seconds."
Mr Pearson's legal team was forced to hire a specialist CCTV forensic expert to present the CCTV at the correct speed and then
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146274/Prosecutors-slowed-down-CCTV-in-case-of-commuter-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-on-actress.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/feb/08/jungle-will-there-be-kent-migrant-camps-if-britain-leaves-eu
Cameron is scaremongering when he implies Brexit would necessarily lead to a mass invasion of asylum seekers from Calais to Kent because the current bilateral agreements have nothing to do with the EU.
There is however a risk that France could end the treaty as a “countermeasure” to Britain leaving the EU, but if that occurred it would be two years before it took effect.
It is highly unlikely thatmigrant camps à la the Jungle would be set up in the south-east as new asylum seekers in Britain are either dispersed to Home Office funded accommodation or held in immigration removal centres.
Whether the state pension is generous or not it is unaffordable on current terms unless other government departments take massive punishment.
I was mentioning that my mate got racially abused on Saturday night by gang of certain race of people from Eastern Europe and we don't need that sort of unskilled immigration.
I'm sure a policy of fining 18 - 22 year olds will be incredibly popular.
Regarding the massive deficit, that actually cutting some stuff, rather than just "cutting the rate of increase" might be a good start. Public spending is almost 10% per annum higher now that in was in 2010, in real terms.
I don't see why first time voters should be coddled. And let's not stat the whole votes for children thing again.
And people over 40 are not a gerontocracy.
My heart is bleeding.
That is exactly why Osborne (and indeed other politicians of all parties) are very keen on encouraging more people to make provision for retirement through saving in pensions. One way of doing that would be to tilt the relief on pension contributions from the very well-off (who are currently the biggest beneficiaries) towards basic-rate taxpayers. Hence the rumoured proposals for a flat rate on income tax relief for pension contributions.
I've no idea whether the rumours are true, but as I've said before I think it would be prudent for higher and top-rate taxpayers to make as much pension contribution before March 6th as they can.
2015
Total Spending £748.1 billion +11%
Pensions £149.8 billion +28%
Health Care £134.1 billion +14%
Education £84.3 billion -5%
Defence £45.3 billion +6%
Welfare £111.1 billion =
2010
Total Spending £673.1 billion
Pensions £116.4 billion
Health Care £116.9 billion
Education £88.5 billion
Defence £42.6 billion
Welfare £110.7 billion
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/02/worlds-biggest-wind-farm-to-be-built-off-the-coast-of-the-uk/
By Dong Energy. Snigger.
Twelve men sentenced for sexual exploitation of Keighley teenager. Never seen such badly behaved defendants. https://t.co/YJ07qylksg
Can Gilmore beat his 12 votes he got in Iowa though ?
Given all the hoops banks have to go through - KYC and the rest of it - it's just not going to work. Khan was just talking out of his rear end.
I think he thought that the reforms would make more impact that they did. Also, the coalition government probably made some difference (rules have changed since the election). But it was a daft pledge that was always a hostage to fortune.
I was a bit sad I couldn't enter his gun raffle.
On the Democrats side, I sincerely hope Bernie berns the Ice Queen though I fear the DEM machine will be too strong.
If you wanted a continuation of the coalition, you would have voted for the incumbent coalition party.
Clearly the voters are missing the Lib Dems, that's why the Lib Dems are polling 6% in the polls.
They thought they had a no brainer investment lined up - well they will have to try a bit harder. They could fill up FTSE tracker ISAs for a few years for a tax free return.
TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
It means if Corbyn is Jarvis by then, you are screwed.
How many bus conductors are approved in 24 hours?
As for "some cuts". Public spending is higher overall but not in all departments. Some of the biggest areas of spending have been subject to real increases as a matter of deliberate policy, eg the NHS and triple-locked Pensions. Others have increased inevitably, eg interest will almost certainly go up when running a deficit. Spending in many non-protected departments has been cut in real terms. So there have been "some cuts". There could have been more but there could have been less had this government not been in power.
They knew exactly what they were voting for when I spoke to hundreds of them in Torbay
Looking at their website, if you turn up with the right documents, bus conductors and factory workers can get approval same day
http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/onedaymortgage
Last time I registered, it took about 5 minutes online.
Is that what this is about? Voting registration is very easy, what is Khan complaining about?
I'll get my coat...
I really don't think we should go down that route, and given how easy it is to register, I don't think it is even necessary.
Re Buy to Let, making it less attractive to let out property doesn't actually increase the overall supply of housing, relative to the population.
It may increase the number of houses available to buy, if landlords sell up, but will reduce the number of houses available to rent.
All things being equal, one would expect house prices to fall a bit, and rents to rise a bit.
This is a damned silly idea. I am unsurprised Tim Montgomerie is in favour.
The whole concept of democracy is freedom to choose. Not bothering to participate is a legitimate choice.
Given the hoops banks have go through even to take on a customer, let alone the recent changes which the FCA brought in about mortgages, I find this surprising. But can't gainsay your colleague's experience.
Still, to be pedantic, I imagine your colleague arrived all prepared with all the necessary documentation, information etc and was already a customer of the bank.
On a separate note, I do worry about banks slipping back into some of the business practices which led to so much grief a few years ago.
We're beginning to forget the lessons some us have yet to learn.
Selling Trump in Arkansas looks to me the best way to bet on him departing before Super Tuesday.