SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
Your ability to misunderstand polls is only matched by your failure to understand posts. What a waste of time.
Nothing to misunderstand. Sarwar was the centrist candidate, you said he was the leftwing candidate so were wrong.
Stopping Scottish independence at all costs is the top priority of this Tory government for the rest of its term so in that sense Sarwar's win helps on that front
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
You are, as always, ignoring the Scottish Greens (the LDs are more of a minority vote, and assuming for the moment that the Scottish Socialists aren't a major threat at the same level). They need to be considered in any analysis of the Scottish voting pattern which involves SLAB post-Mr Corbyn.
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2.
Is it possible in this present climate of Salmond v Sturgeon. That in the election for the Scottish Parliament not a direct election for Independence. This may effect the SNP vote and they may becoming to complacent.
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
You are, as always, ignoring the Scottish Greens (the LDs are more of a minority vote, and assuming for the moment that the Scottish Socialists aren't a major threat at the same level). They need to be considered in any analysis of the Scottish voting pattern which involves SLAB post-Mr Corbyn.
We Tories will of course refuse a legal indyref2 given there is already an SNP and Green government in Scotland, no mandate whatsoever for indyref2 comes from no change.
The failure of the SNP to get a thumping majority would just make it easier when Boris ignores Sturgeon
Excellent header, thanks David. I guess it’s considered a local news story so isn’t getting much attention on the national news despite the potential for serious consequences for Labour nationally.
On the house price discussion, @guybrush is spot on. The housing market looks like a pyramid scheme and I’ve decided that I’m better off staying with my parents. It’s a little depressing, but I think there’s a chance that the whole thing comes tumbling down.
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
You are, as always, ignoring the Scottish Greens (the LDs are more of a minority vote, and assuming for the moment that the Scottish Socialists aren't a major threat at the same level). They need to be considered in any analysis of the Scottish voting pattern which involves SLAB post-Mr Corbyn.
We Tories will of course refuse a legal indyref2 given there is already an SNP and Green government in Scotland, no mandate whatsoever for indyref2 comes from no change.
The failure of the SNP to get a thumping majority would just make it easier when Boris ignores Sturgeon
There is no such thing as a "SNP and Green" government in Scotland.
Again - you are not reading posts (though I see you are failing again to include the Greens in any analysis of pro-independence voting in the Scottish P{arliament, conveniently for your party line but very unhelpfully for those of us more concerned with reality (and betting)).
I am talking about the Labour/Green/SSP votes transferred as a result of Mr Sarwar winning the election and SKS as leader of the Labour Party.
That's rather misleading, because an average of 27 different datasets will always be smoothed. But then he is a bit of a troll.
I think you've misunderstood what smoothing is, Matt.
There was a big Xmas spike in the UK compared with other European countries, either taken collectively or individually. That was predictable, and many people were urging the Government at the time to be tougher earlier.
I'm not one of those who is reflexively critical of all aspects of what the Government does on this, but it's simply mindless denialism to say that important mistakes weren't made in the run up to Xmas.
I think I have the correct word.
An average of 27 different samples - whether 27 values at one time, or 7 values to get a rolling mean - will always be smoother.
There was not actually a big spike in the UK compared to "the EU", as per Tim Walker's claim. The was a big spike compared to some countries, and not to others. To illustrate, here is Tim's chart comparing the UK to the *EU AVERAGE*.
And here is a chart of the same number, comparing the UK to a selection (about 20) EU countries. The claim that the EU was entirely and completely different to the UK is exagerrated (to be kind).
There are may things you can say reaosonably, but what Tim said is not one of them.
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
Your ability to misunderstand polls is only matched by your failure to understand posts. What a waste of time.
Nothing to misunderstand. Sarwar was the centrist candidate, you said he was the leftwing candidate so were wrong.
Stopping Scottish independence at all costs is the top priority of this Tory government for the rest of its term so in that sense Sarwar's win helps on that front
If the top priority for the Conservative Party is now stopping Scottish Independence, does that mean that Johnson will resign some time in the near future?
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
Your ability to misunderstand polls is only matched by your failure to understand posts. What a waste of time.
Nothing to misunderstand. Sarwar was the centrist candidate, you said he was the leftwing candidate so were wrong.
Stopping Scottish independence at all costs is the top priority of this Tory government for the rest of its term so in that sense Sarwar's win helps on that front
If the top priority for the Conservative Party is now stopping Scottish Independence, does that mean that Johnson will resign some time in the near future?
I did wonder about this virus business, not to mention the public finances, and something called B..., oh I forget what it is but it ends with a t and somehow Northern Ireland and the Scottish fishermen are very unhappy about it.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
That's rather misleading, because an average of 27 different datasets will always be smoothed. But then he is a bit of a troll.
I think you've misunderstood what smoothing is, Matt.
There was a big Xmas spike in the UK compared with other European countries, either taken collectively or individually. That was predictable, and many people were urging the Government at the time to be tougher earlier.
I'm not one of those who is reflexively critical of all aspects of what the Government does on this, but it's simply mindless denialism to say that important mistakes weren't made in the run up to Xmas.
It wasn't predictable since all countries had an easing around Christmas - indeed the UK's easing was less generous than most European countries were, so how do you explain that?
The Kent Covid is the only explanation for that chart.
@Philip_Thompson is right (as discussed in previous debates) that the best way to ensure quality and sustainable housing is built is for competition to ensure its not feasible to build anything but. The problem is getting to that point without building hundreds of thousands of @Pulpstar ’s favourite Persimmon shit boxes. I don’t know the answer.
However there is house building at scale in this country at present. Take my city - Newcastle. Every single little bit of green field and brown field is pretty much being filled in, right up to the boundaries of Newcastle and in North and South Tyneside.
It is sprawling suburban housing estates though.
Thanks for the hat tip.
The long term answer is the same as it always has been. Abolish NIMBYism. Let whoever owns the land build whatever they want to on that land, subject to preset building standards.
Let a free market build houses people want to buy - and if you don't want people to build on that field near your house then buy the field yourself, or it isn't yours so you have no right to decide what is done on it.
Unfortunately no party has the balls to do the right thing - and I condemn my own for that too.
Hundreds/thousands of new houses cannot be built in a vacuum though. There is a whole local infrastructure that has to be developed around them (schools/shops/health facilities etc etc)
So just do it then.
Every new house build is more revenue for the local Council, put it into infrastructure if its needed.
Perhaps have a tax on new builds that can be spent on building the infrastructure required. While shops etc will be built because companies will want a premise near the homes so they will build what is required.
Simply doing nothing isn't a solution.
In some ways that tax already exists. Councils will often require developers to contribute (significant) money towards infrastructure which ultimately is passed onto buyers.
For example the builder of my house basically paid for a new 1st school to be built by the council.
That's not a tax, that's tieing it in to getting planning consent, which means the only way to get consent is to build an entire estate while building a school etc.
I'm saying to break the link between building and planning, so it isn't all estates. If someone wants to buy a parcel of land and build six houses on it let them do so - and pay the tax for six homes. Rather than an estate or nothing.
Challenging times in store for you. You're on record as believing it economically illiterate to hike taxes before the recovery is well underway. Yet I hear that such is the intention of the Magnificent Johnson. TBC in the budget but it looks like you will be faced with having to label the Magnificent an economic illiterate. Not a nice prospect. It will be interesting to see how you tackle it.
No challenge. If taxes are put up I will call it madness. I'm hoping this is expectations management and it isn't done.
I have no qualms departing with my party when my party does the wrong thing. Did you think I was a partisan hack always backing my party right or wrong? Did you miss me utterly rejecting my party 2017-2019.
There are two taxes that I think can be put up without any harm:
a) the vat reduction to 5% to encourage tourism and going out can be reversed. It is a tax on the consumer and not the business and only impacts the business if it deters the consumer and by all accounts we are desperate to get out there and spend on these things so this is a free hit for the treasury.
b) A modest increase in Corporation Tax should be fairly painless and those businesses hit by the pandemic will be able to bring their losses forward so will only impact those doing ok during these times.
I completely disagree.
a) The hospitality and tourism industries need to recover, they the 5% allows them to do so. It also is a tax on the business since anything that hits the consumer hits the business too, you can't divorce the two concepts. In particular VAT on food is doubly egregious. Prices are sticky, if a struggling business has the VAT cut to 5% they can maintain their existing prices and that fattens their margins allowing them to rebuild the business. The VAT cut should be maintained for two years IMHO to allow these businesses to recover after having suffered the most in the past year.
Secondly there's no VAT on food in supermarkets etc so people forget when they go out that they're getting whacked for 20% tax which isn't the case at home and the business has to swallow this cost within the ticket price they're charging the customer since we do not add VAT to the bill in this country like they do in the USA, its all included within the price originally.
b) We should be looking to be getting businesses to invest now so they can employ people who've lost their jobs, not be looking to displace activity.
Philip, If what you say is correct, and I'm not saying it isn't, then I would agree, but I gave my reasons why it wasn't a hit on the businesses in both cases. Now of course I might be wrong but:
a) By all accounts we are chomping at the bit to go out and go on holiday and to visit the pub etc. If the demand exceeds supply then for once you will not be impacting the businesses. If you are right and it does then I would agree with you. There is clearly a lot of anecdotal evidence that we are looking at a consumer boom when this is over.
b) Don't really understand your reply to part b). A corporation tax increase to companies bringing forward losses from the pandemic has no effect at all on those companies. If you don't pay tax an increase in the tax rate is still nothing. So this will only impact organisations that have done well out of the pandemic. Those that have suffered will pay no tax. So this suggestion has no negative impact on investment whatsoever and allows those that have done well out of the pandemic to pay something back.
a) We may be chomping on the bit to go out but those pubs and holiday businesses etc have seen their savings evaporated and loans taken on. A VAT-reduction means thicker margins at the same price for the consumer which allows the businesses that have been hammered to make up their losses and rebuild their balance sheets. The consumer boom isn't some windfall to be taxed, the businesses need that money to recuperate.
b) We don't just need pre-existing companies we need new companies and expansion of old ones to fill the gaps in the market. If taxes are higher that reduces the incentive for companies to invest.
In a couple of years once the economy is at an even keel and has recovered then yes it will be necessary to balance the deficit. It isn't necessary today, restoring the economy comes first - restoring the finances follows and it follows largely automatically, it is the structural element that will need to be fixed in a couple of years time.
Two good points, well made.
So in summary:
a) The holiday businesses maintain their higher inclusive Vat prices (which they can do if the demand is there) and keep a bigger slice of it.
b) Not sure about this reply. I must admit I hadn't thought about new businesses, which is vital, but I'm not sure if many will pay Corp Tax in the early years anyway. The old ones are covered by my previous comments. They will have losses brought forward to offset against Corp Tax and also if expanding, Capital Allowances. So I can only see Corporation Tax being paid by those that were thriving during the pandemic in the next few years. Would be useful to see some data to know whether I am talking bollocks as I am just making assumptions.
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
Your ability to misunderstand polls is only matched by your failure to understand posts. What a waste of time.
Nothing to misunderstand. Sarwar was the centrist candidate, you said he was the leftwing candidate so were wrong.
Stopping Scottish independence at all costs is the top priority of this Tory government for the rest of its term so in that sense Sarwar's win helps on that front
If the top priority for the Conservative Party is now stopping Scottish Independence, does that mean that Johnson will resign some time in the near future?
No, he will ban a legal indyref2 regardless and Union matters are reserved to Westminster
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
You are, as always, ignoring the Scottish Greens (the LDs are more of a minority vote, and assuming for the moment that the Scottish Socialists aren't a major threat at the same level). They need to be considered in any analysis of the Scottish voting pattern which involves SLAB post-Mr Corbyn.
We Tories will of course refuse a legal indyref2 given there is already an SNP and Green government in Scotland, no mandate whatsoever for indyref2 comes from no change.
The failure of the SNP to get a thumping majority would just make it easier when Boris ignores Sturgeon
There is no such thing as a "SNP and Green" government in Scotland.
Again - you are not reading posts (though I see you are failing again to include the Greens in any analysis of pro-independence voting in the Scottish P{arliament, conveniently for your party line but very unhelpfully for those of us more concerned with reality (and betting)).
I am talking about the Labour/Green/SSP votes transferred as a result of Mr Sarwar winning the election and SKS as leader of the Labour Party.
There are no votes that will be transferred, SLab is already under 20% thanks to Corbyn and Leonard, he will win over Tory and LD tactical votes however and perhaps centrist SNP voters appalled at the SNP civil war
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
For my daughter, the deposit isn’t the issue. She’s managed to save up a chunky deposit. The problem is that any half-decent house around here costs 250k+ Which means that a salary of 40k and a deposit of 50k might get her a shoebox in a dodgy area of Didcot, if she’s lucky. As she watches the house prices continue to accelerate away.
Houses are overvalued. That’s the issue. Everything else is pissing about at the margins. Including “Help to get further into debt” or messing about with deposits.
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
Your ability to misunderstand polls is only matched by your failure to understand posts. What a waste of time.
Nothing to misunderstand. Sarwar was the centrist candidate, you said he was the leftwing candidate so were wrong.
Stopping Scottish independence at all costs is the top priority of this Tory government for the rest of its term so in that sense Sarwar's win helps on that front
Care to quote where I stated Sarwar was a left-wing candidate? I await your apology.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
For my taste, Prince Charles has too few periods of design he likes, and it all ends up a bit "ersatz history" and "Trumpton".
The recent 'Build Beautiful' document by Scruton was quite good imo.
But what is good design? And what is beautiful?
(Remember that tastes change constantly - in the 1960s they were happily putting dual carriageways through medieval town centres)
And what matters? For example, should we have permeable estates and street patterns, or should we follow crime prevention guidelines of the last 25 years and prevent scrotes having so many escape routes they are never caught?
There’s also the important point that just because you’re paying £x per month in rent doesn’t mean you can pay the same amount per month to a mortgage.
You may be financially able to do so, but, rather crucially, the lenders don’t accept that as proof that you could afford to do so. As a rule of thumb, they won’t lend you enough for that. We know quite a few trapped into paying more per month in rent than they would be paying on a mortgage for a similar property, but not being able to get a mortgage for that because “it’s unaffordable for you.”
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
@Philip_Thompson is right (as discussed in previous debates) that the best way to ensure quality and sustainable housing is built is for competition to ensure its not feasible to build anything but. The problem is getting to that point without building hundreds of thousands of @Pulpstar ’s favourite Persimmon shit boxes. I don’t know the answer.
However there is house building at scale in this country at present. Take my city - Newcastle. Every single little bit of green field and brown field is pretty much being filled in, right up to the boundaries of Newcastle and in North and South Tyneside.
It is sprawling suburban housing estates though.
Thanks for the hat tip.
The long term answer is the same as it always has been. Abolish NIMBYism. Let whoever owns the land build whatever they want to on that land, subject to preset building standards.
Let a free market build houses people want to buy - and if you don't want people to build on that field near your house then buy the field yourself, or it isn't yours so you have no right to decide what is done on it.
Unfortunately no party has the balls to do the right thing - and I condemn my own for that too.
Hundreds/thousands of new houses cannot be built in a vacuum though. There is a whole local infrastructure that has to be developed around them (schools/shops/health facilities etc etc)
So just do it then.
Every new house build is more revenue for the local Council, put it into infrastructure if its needed.
Perhaps have a tax on new builds that can be spent on building the infrastructure required. While shops etc will be built because companies will want a premise near the homes so they will build what is required.
Simply doing nothing isn't a solution.
In some ways that tax already exists. Councils will often require developers to contribute (significant) money towards infrastructure which ultimately is passed onto buyers.
For example the builder of my house basically paid for a new 1st school to be built by the council.
That's not a tax, that's tieing it in to getting planning consent, which means the only way to get consent is to build an entire estate while building a school etc.
I'm saying to break the link between building and planning, so it isn't all estates. If someone wants to buy a parcel of land and build six houses on it let them do so - and pay the tax for six homes. Rather than an estate or nothing.
Challenging times in store for you. You're on record as believing it economically illiterate to hike taxes before the recovery is well underway. Yet I hear that such is the intention of the Magnificent Johnson. TBC in the budget but it looks like you will be faced with having to label the Magnificent an economic illiterate. Not a nice prospect. It will be interesting to see how you tackle it.
No challenge. If taxes are put up I will call it madness. I'm hoping this is expectations management and it isn't done.
I have no qualms departing with my party when my party does the wrong thing. Did you think I was a partisan hack always backing my party right or wrong? Did you miss me utterly rejecting my party 2017-2019.
There are two taxes that I think can be put up without any harm:
a) the vat reduction to 5% to encourage tourism and going out can be reversed. It is a tax on the consumer and not the business and only impacts the business if it deters the consumer and by all accounts we are desperate to get out there and spend on these things so this is a free hit for the treasury.
b) A modest increase in Corporation Tax should be fairly painless and those businesses hit by the pandemic will be able to bring their losses forward so will only impact those doing ok during these times.
I completely disagree.
a) The hospitality and tourism industries need to recover, they the 5% allows them to do so. It also is a tax on the business since anything that hits the consumer hits the business too, you can't divorce the two concepts. In particular VAT on food is doubly egregious. Prices are sticky, if a struggling business has the VAT cut to 5% they can maintain their existing prices and that fattens their margins allowing them to rebuild the business. The VAT cut should be maintained for two years IMHO to allow these businesses to recover after having suffered the most in the past year.
Secondly there's no VAT on food in supermarkets etc so people forget when they go out that they're getting whacked for 20% tax which isn't the case at home and the business has to swallow this cost within the ticket price they're charging the customer since we do not add VAT to the bill in this country like they do in the USA, its all included within the price originally.
b) We should be looking to be getting businesses to invest now so they can employ people who've lost their jobs, not be looking to displace activity.
Philip, If what you say is correct, and I'm not saying it isn't, then I would agree, but I gave my reasons why it wasn't a hit on the businesses in both cases. Now of course I might be wrong but:
a) By all accounts we are chomping at the bit to go out and go on holiday and to visit the pub etc. If the demand exceeds supply then for once you will not be impacting the businesses. If you are right and it does then I would agree with you. There is clearly a lot of anecdotal evidence that we are looking at a consumer boom when this is over.
b) Don't really understand your reply to part b). A corporation tax increase to companies bringing forward losses from the pandemic has no effect at all on those companies. If you don't pay tax an increase in the tax rate is still nothing. So this will only impact organisations that have done well out of the pandemic. Those that have suffered will pay no tax. So this suggestion has no negative impact on investment whatsoever and allows those that have done well out of the pandemic to pay something back.
a) We may be chomping on the bit to go out but those pubs and holiday businesses etc have seen their savings evaporated and loans taken on. A VAT-reduction means thicker margins at the same price for the consumer which allows the businesses that have been hammered to make up their losses and rebuild their balance sheets. The consumer boom isn't some windfall to be taxed, the businesses need that money to recuperate.
b) We don't just need pre-existing companies we need new companies and expansion of old ones to fill the gaps in the market. If taxes are higher that reduces the incentive for companies to invest.
In a couple of years once the economy is at an even keel and has recovered then yes it will be necessary to balance the deficit. It isn't necessary today, restoring the economy comes first - restoring the finances follows and it follows largely automatically, it is the structural element that will need to be fixed in a couple of years time.
Two good points, well made.
So in summary:
a) The holiday businesses maintain their higher inclusive Vat prices (which they can do if the demand is there) and keep a bigger slice of it.
b) Not sure about this reply. I must admit I hadn't thought about new businesses, which is vital, but I'm not sure if many will pay Corp Tax in the early years anyway. The old ones are covered by my previous comments. They will have losses brought forward to offset against Corp Tax and also if expanding, Capital Allowances. So I can only see Corporation Tax being paid by those that were thriving during the pandemic in the next few years. Would be useful to see some data to know whether I am talking bollocks as I am just making assumptions.
a) Yes, precisely.
b) You're right. But people consider Corp Tax etc when choosing whether to invest in the first place. Because they're ambitious to make (and keep) a profit in the future. If they think they're not going to get as much money in the future (because it'll be taxed away) then they're less likely to invest now, when we need that investment the most.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
Surely low interest rates result in higher prices. So they are better for the seller. The buyer has to buy at a higher price and then has the risk of rates going up (they can hardly go down further) in the future.
Anything that makes it easier to buy a house just puts the price up to the point at which it's as hard as it was before, assuming the stock is fixed and there are enough people wanting to buy?
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
I think its right because its what we had successfully through the 80s and 90s when the youngest were able to buy their houses earlier.
Yes it is a strange stance. If I was dictator and able to rule by whim I'd do the supply side reforms I advocate instead, liberating the housing market and letting anyone build whatever they want to on their own land. That would fix the housing issues and see house prices plummet as a result, the free market would work.
But we don't have a free market now and no party, not even the Tories, are allowing a free market to develop. So until massive supply side planning reforms these relatively minor tax tweaks help rebalance the economy to sooth the failings caused by the planning consent boosting the wealth of owners and punishing those who want to buy.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
Sarwar's defeat of Lennon is yet another defeat for Corbynites.
Now Corbyn has been replaced as UK Labour leader by Starmer and Leonard has been replaced as Scottish Labour leader by Sarwar, Drakeford in Wales is the last Corbynista Labour leader left standing (though to be fair Wales was the only country Corbyn won in 2019, he lost England and Scotland)
another millionaire Labour leader will be a great boost for the sub regional office
@Philip_Thompson is right (as discussed in previous debates) that the best way to ensure quality and sustainable housing is built is for competition to ensure its not feasible to build anything but. The problem is getting to that point without building hundreds of thousands of @Pulpstar ’s favourite Persimmon shit boxes. I don’t know the answer.
However there is house building at scale in this country at present. Take my city - Newcastle. Every single little bit of green field and brown field is pretty much being filled in, right up to the boundaries of Newcastle and in North and South Tyneside.
It is sprawling suburban housing estates though.
Thanks for the hat tip.
The long term answer is the same as it always has been. Abolish NIMBYism. Let whoever owns the land build whatever they want to on that land, subject to preset building standards.
Let a free market build houses people want to buy - and if you don't want people to build on that field near your house then buy the field yourself, or it isn't yours so you have no right to decide what is done on it.
Unfortunately no party has the balls to do the right thing - and I condemn my own for that too.
Hundreds/thousands of new houses cannot be built in a vacuum though. There is a whole local infrastructure that has to be developed around them (schools/shops/health facilities etc etc)
So just do it then.
Every new house build is more revenue for the local Council, put it into infrastructure if its needed.
Perhaps have a tax on new builds that can be spent on building the infrastructure required. While shops etc will be built because companies will want a premise near the homes so they will build what is required.
Simply doing nothing isn't a solution.
In some ways that tax already exists. Councils will often require developers to contribute (significant) money towards infrastructure which ultimately is passed onto buyers.
For example the builder of my house basically paid for a new 1st school to be built by the council.
That's not a tax, that's tieing it in to getting planning consent, which means the only way to get consent is to build an entire estate while building a school etc.
I'm saying to break the link between building and planning, so it isn't all estates. If someone wants to buy a parcel of land and build six houses on it let them do so - and pay the tax for six homes. Rather than an estate or nothing.
Challenging times in store for you. You're on record as believing it economically illiterate to hike taxes before the recovery is well underway. Yet I hear that such is the intention of the Magnificent Johnson. TBC in the budget but it looks like you will be faced with having to label the Magnificent an economic illiterate. Not a nice prospect. It will be interesting to see how you tackle it.
No challenge. If taxes are put up I will call it madness. I'm hoping this is expectations management and it isn't done.
I have no qualms departing with my party when my party does the wrong thing. Did you think I was a partisan hack always backing my party right or wrong? Did you miss me utterly rejecting my party 2017-2019.
There are two taxes that I think can be put up without any harm:
a) the vat reduction to 5% to encourage tourism and going out can be reversed. It is a tax on the consumer and not the business and only impacts the business if it deters the consumer and by all accounts we are desperate to get out there and spend on these things so this is a free hit for the treasury.
b) A modest increase in Corporation Tax should be fairly painless and those businesses hit by the pandemic will be able to bring their losses forward so will only impact those doing ok during these times.
I completely disagree.
a) The hospitality and tourism industries need to recover, they the 5% allows them to do so. It also is a tax on the business since anything that hits the consumer hits the business too, you can't divorce the two concepts. In particular VAT on food is doubly egregious. Prices are sticky, if a struggling business has the VAT cut to 5% they can maintain their existing prices and that fattens their margins allowing them to rebuild the business. The VAT cut should be maintained for two years IMHO to allow these businesses to recover after having suffered the most in the past year.
Secondly there's no VAT on food in supermarkets etc so people forget when they go out that they're getting whacked for 20% tax which isn't the case at home and the business has to swallow this cost within the ticket price they're charging the customer since we do not add VAT to the bill in this country like they do in the USA, its all included within the price originally.
b) We should be looking to be getting businesses to invest now so they can employ people who've lost their jobs, not be looking to displace activity.
Philip, If what you say is correct, and I'm not saying it isn't, then I would agree, but I gave my reasons why it wasn't a hit on the businesses in both cases. Now of course I might be wrong but:
a) By all accounts we are chomping at the bit to go out and go on holiday and to visit the pub etc. If the demand exceeds supply then for once you will not be impacting the businesses. If you are right and it does then I would agree with you. There is clearly a lot of anecdotal evidence that we are looking at a consumer boom when this is over.
b) Don't really understand your reply to part b). A corporation tax increase to companies bringing forward losses from the pandemic has no effect at all on those companies. If you don't pay tax an increase in the tax rate is still nothing. So this will only impact organisations that have done well out of the pandemic. Those that have suffered will pay no tax. So this suggestion has no negative impact on investment whatsoever and allows those that have done well out of the pandemic to pay something back.
a) We may be chomping on the bit to go out but those pubs and holiday businesses etc have seen their savings evaporated and loans taken on. A VAT-reduction means thicker margins at the same price for the consumer which allows the businesses that have been hammered to make up their losses and rebuild their balance sheets. The consumer boom isn't some windfall to be taxed, the businesses need that money to recuperate.
b) We don't just need pre-existing companies we need new companies and expansion of old ones to fill the gaps in the market. If taxes are higher that reduces the incentive for companies to invest.
In a couple of years once the economy is at an even keel and has recovered then yes it will be necessary to balance the deficit. It isn't necessary today, restoring the economy comes first - restoring the finances follows and it follows largely automatically, it is the structural element that will need to be fixed in a couple of years time.
Two good points, well made.
So in summary:
a) The holiday businesses maintain their higher inclusive Vat prices (which they can do if the demand is there) and keep a bigger slice of it.
b) Not sure about this reply. I must admit I hadn't thought about new businesses, which is vital, but I'm not sure if many will pay Corp Tax in the early years anyway. The old ones are covered by my previous comments. They will have losses brought forward to offset against Corp Tax and also if expanding, Capital Allowances. So I can only see Corporation Tax being paid by those that were thriving during the pandemic in the next few years. Would be useful to see some data to know whether I am talking bollocks as I am just making assumptions.
a) Yes, precisely.
b) You're right. But people consider Corp Tax etc when choosing whether to invest in the first place. Because they're ambitious to make (and keep) a profit in the future. If they think they're not going to get as much money in the future (because it'll be taxed away) then they're less likely to invest now, when we need that investment the most.
When someone waived a 100% CA in my face I was always keen to invest regardless of the CT rate Putting off the evil day.
What do you think will happen in the Budget re these two taxes regardless of the rights and wrongs?
I think he will not change the Vat situation for at least a year, if for no other reason than it will be popular with people thinking they are paying less for stuff (even if in reality they are not). So chancellor being nice to the people.
I think he may do something on Corporation Tax or some sort of windfall tax on those businesses that thrived during the pandemic (no idea how). Chancellor on the side of the people making sure we are all in it together.
The government will offer incentives to lenders, bringing back 95% mortgages which have "virtually disappeared" during the pandemic, the Treasury said.
Fine.
It is not restricted to first-time buyers or new-build homes, but there will be a £600,000 limit.
So actually it's not for young people at all, anyone who fancies a new home to rent can use this, this won't solve the problem, it will just drive up prices further.
The Tories do not care about young people owning houses, this policy is a con.
The guarantee only comes into play if the borrower defaults and has no other assets the lender can claim against. So your outrage is entirely confected
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
Surely low interest rates result in higher prices. So they are better for the seller. The buyer has to buy at a higher price and then has the risk of rates going up (they can hardly go down further) in the future.
Anything that makes it easier to buy a house just puts the price up to the point at which it's as hard as it was before, assuming the stock is fixed and there are enough people wanting to buy?
Except supply and demand are what causes the house prices to be high, not interest rates. Having fewer houses available than the amount of population that needs the house sees the price go up.
House prices shot up 2000-2010, house price to wage ratios kept increasing, interest rates were higher than they have been for the past decade, BTLers entered the market, the proportion of first time buyers collapsed.
Post 2010 we've seen low interest rates, house price to wage ratios slowly reverse, house prices relatively stable, BTL stabilise (but not go into reverse), first time buyers going back up gradually.
The damage of 2000-2010 was tremendous and needs to be reversed, its gradually being so with low interest rates. I see no evidence increasing interest rates to the levels that they were during the 2000-2010 period while house prices were shooting up would do that.
The government will offer incentives to lenders, bringing back 95% mortgages which have "virtually disappeared" during the pandemic, the Treasury said.
Fine.
It is not restricted to first-time buyers or new-build homes, but there will be a £600,000 limit.
So actually it's not for young people at all, anyone who fancies a new home to rent can use this, this won't solve the problem, it will just drive up prices further.
The Tories do not care about young people owning houses, this policy is a con.
BTL needs no help whatsoever. Yields of up to 5% vs borrow at cheap as chips.
BTL is a horrific business for amateurs.
Yields are low and risk and complexity high.
It’s certainly one we avoid unless part of a broader initiative
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
One problem is that historically inflation eroded a mortgage, but now it does not. It is not just a matter of deposit, now mortgage holders will not just have to cover the interest, they will actually need to repay the capital. At least as long as inflation stays low.
The other thing is the pain of negative equity. I am old enough to remember that in the early nineties, when minimal deposit mortgages set up that problem. History repeats itself when memories have faded.
For my taste, Prince Charles has too few periods of design he likes, and it all ends up a bit "ersatz history" and "Trumpton".
The recent 'Build Beautiful' document by Scruton was quite good imo.
But what is good design? And what is beautiful?
(Remember that tastes change constantly - in the 1960s they were happily putting dual carriageways through medieval town centres)
And what matters? For example, should we have permeable estates and street patterns, or should we follow crime prevention guidelines of the last 25 years and prevent scrotes having so many escape routes they are never caught?
You raise a fascinating question - but I'd disagree with some of the points here. People in the 1960's knew those buildings and projects were f**k ugly. A vanguard of brutalists insisted on them, most went along with the Emperor's new clothes, and a few who called it right were dismissed.
There are certain universal principles as to what pleases the human eye, and they have good 'primeval' reasons. We prefer natural, or natural looking materials, as they evoke lush, fertile, natural landscape. We prefer curves and undulations to jagged edges for the same reason. We prefer thick looking walls with deeply recessed windows, because they look like the buildings will be safer and warmer. We prefer rich decoration to lack of ornament because it reflects wealth and abundance. If we develop these and other natural preferences into a set of principles for beautiful buildings, we can steer clear of monstrosities, whatever the trends of the future - that would be incredibly worthwhile.
Regarding Prince Charles, all the criticism I have seen of Poundbury and his other architectural pastiches seems to be that they lack authenticity - comparing them to real 18th and 19th century buildings. That is not a valid comparison, because there was never any possibility of 18th and 19th century buildings being conjured up. The real comparison is with modern grey rabbit hutches, and I think few of his critics would not overcome their aversion to Poundbury if their alternative was living on a grey estate in Crawley or Milton Keynes.
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
Your ability to misunderstand polls is only matched by your failure to understand posts. What a waste of time.
Nothing to misunderstand. Sarwar was the centrist candidate, you said he was the leftwing candidate so were wrong.
Stopping Scottish independence at all costs is the top priority of this Tory government for the rest of its term so in that sense Sarwar's win helps on that front
Care to quote where I stated Sarwar was a left-wing candidate? I await your apology.
@Philip_Thompson is right (as discussed in previous debates) that the best way to ensure quality and sustainable housing is built is for competition to ensure its not feasible to build anything but. The problem is getting to that point without building hundreds of thousands of @Pulpstar ’s favourite Persimmon shit boxes. I don’t know the answer.
However there is house building at scale in this country at present. Take my city - Newcastle. Every single little bit of green field and brown field is pretty much being filled in, right up to the boundaries of Newcastle and in North and South Tyneside.
It is sprawling suburban housing estates though.
Thanks for the hat tip.
The long term answer is the same as it always has been. Abolish NIMBYism. Let whoever owns the land build whatever they want to on that land, subject to preset building standards.
Let a free market build houses people want to buy - and if you don't want people to build on that field near your house then buy the field yourself, or it isn't yours so you have no right to decide what is done on it.
Unfortunately no party has the balls to do the right thing - and I condemn my own for that too.
Hundreds/thousands of new houses cannot be built in a vacuum though. There is a whole local infrastructure that has to be developed around them (schools/shops/health facilities etc etc)
So just do it then.
Every new house build is more revenue for the local Council, put it into infrastructure if its needed.
Perhaps have a tax on new builds that can be spent on building the infrastructure required. While shops etc will be built because companies will want a premise near the homes so they will build what is required.
Simply doing nothing isn't a solution.
In some ways that tax already exists. Councils will often require developers to contribute (significant) money towards infrastructure which ultimately is passed onto buyers.
For example the builder of my house basically paid for a new 1st school to be built by the council.
That's not a tax, that's tieing it in to getting planning consent, which means the only way to get consent is to build an entire estate while building a school etc.
I'm saying to break the link between building and planning, so it isn't all estates. If someone wants to buy a parcel of land and build six houses on it let them do so - and pay the tax for six homes. Rather than an estate or nothing.
Challenging times in store for you. You're on record as believing it economically illiterate to hike taxes before the recovery is well underway. Yet I hear that such is the intention of the Magnificent Johnson. TBC in the budget but it looks like you will be faced with having to label the Magnificent an economic illiterate. Not a nice prospect. It will be interesting to see how you tackle it.
No challenge. If taxes are put up I will call it madness. I'm hoping this is expectations management and it isn't done.
I have no qualms departing with my party when my party does the wrong thing. Did you think I was a partisan hack always backing my party right or wrong? Did you miss me utterly rejecting my party 2017-2019.
There are two taxes that I think can be put up without any harm:
a) the vat reduction to 5% to encourage tourism and going out can be reversed. It is a tax on the consumer and not the business and only impacts the business if it deters the consumer and by all accounts we are desperate to get out there and spend on these things so this is a free hit for the treasury.
b) A modest increase in Corporation Tax should be fairly painless and those businesses hit by the pandemic will be able to bring their losses forward so will only impact those doing ok during these times.
I completely disagree.
a) The hospitality and tourism industries need to recover, they the 5% allows them to do so. It also is a tax on the business since anything that hits the consumer hits the business too, you can't divorce the two concepts. In particular VAT on food is doubly egregious. Prices are sticky, if a struggling business has the VAT cut to 5% they can maintain their existing prices and that fattens their margins allowing them to rebuild the business. The VAT cut should be maintained for two years IMHO to allow these businesses to recover after having suffered the most in the past year.
Secondly there's no VAT on food in supermarkets etc so people forget when they go out that they're getting whacked for 20% tax which isn't the case at home and the business has to swallow this cost within the ticket price they're charging the customer since we do not add VAT to the bill in this country like they do in the USA, its all included within the price originally.
b) We should be looking to be getting businesses to invest now so they can employ people who've lost their jobs, not be looking to displace activity.
Philip, If what you say is correct, and I'm not saying it isn't, then I would agree, but I gave my reasons why it wasn't a hit on the businesses in both cases. Now of course I might be wrong but:
a) By all accounts we are chomping at the bit to go out and go on holiday and to visit the pub etc. If the demand exceeds supply then for once you will not be impacting the businesses. If you are right and it does then I would agree with you. There is clearly a lot of anecdotal evidence that we are looking at a consumer boom when this is over.
b) Don't really understand your reply to part b). A corporation tax increase to companies bringing forward losses from the pandemic has no effect at all on those companies. If you don't pay tax an increase in the tax rate is still nothing. So this will only impact organisations that have done well out of the pandemic. Those that have suffered will pay no tax. So this suggestion has no negative impact on investment whatsoever and allows those that have done well out of the pandemic to pay something back.
a) We may be chomping on the bit to go out but those pubs and holiday businesses etc have seen their savings evaporated and loans taken on. A VAT-reduction means thicker margins at the same price for the consumer which allows the businesses that have been hammered to make up their losses and rebuild their balance sheets. The consumer boom isn't some windfall to be taxed, the businesses need that money to recuperate.
b) We don't just need pre-existing companies we need new companies and expansion of old ones to fill the gaps in the market. If taxes are higher that reduces the incentive for companies to invest.
In a couple of years once the economy is at an even keel and has recovered then yes it will be necessary to balance the deficit. It isn't necessary today, restoring the economy comes first - restoring the finances follows and it follows largely automatically, it is the structural element that will need to be fixed in a couple of years time.
Two good points, well made.
So in summary:
a) The holiday businesses maintain their higher inclusive Vat prices (which they can do if the demand is there) and keep a bigger slice of it.
b) Not sure about this reply. I must admit I hadn't thought about new businesses, which is vital, but I'm not sure if many will pay Corp Tax in the early years anyway. The old ones are covered by my previous comments. They will have losses brought forward to offset against Corp Tax and also if expanding, Capital Allowances. So I can only see Corporation Tax being paid by those that were thriving during the pandemic in the next few years. Would be useful to see some data to know whether I am talking bollocks as I am just making assumptions.
a) Yes, precisely.
b) You're right. But people consider Corp Tax etc when choosing whether to invest in the first place. Because they're ambitious to make (and keep) a profit in the future. If they think they're not going to get as much money in the future (because it'll be taxed away) then they're less likely to invest now, when we need that investment the most.
When someone waived a 100% CA in my face I was always keen to invest regardless of the CT rate Putting off the evil day.
What do you think will happen in the Budget re these two taxes regardless of the rights and wrongs?
I think he will not change the Vat situation for at least a year, if for no other reason than it will be popular with people thinking they are paying less for stuff (even if in reality they are not). So chancellor being nice to the people.
I think he may do something on Corporation Tax or some sort of windfall tax on those businesses that thrived during the pandemic (no idea how). Chancellor on the side of the people making sure we are all in it together.
While I would oppose both personally, a CT rise would be much more justifiable both economically and politically than 20% VAT on those elements of the economy that have been hit the hardest by the pandemic.
I'm sure all the goons who go on and on about Diane Abbott's choices on how her kid was educated will be totally on board with a millionaire that sends his kids to private school making a case for a socially just Scotland.
Narrator: of course they will because these people will endure any contortion of principle to save the Union.
Sarwar will be looking to attract Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP in central belt seats where Labour are the main alternative to the SNP, so sending his kids to private school will do him no harm on that front
Ah, bless him... He did it just to attract Conservative voters.... What a sacrifice to make!
But are you quite sure, young HY, that a large number of Conservative voters do not really approve of state education? In my day, they used to...
Sarwar's defeat of Lennon is yet another defeat for Corbynites.
Now Corbyn has been replaced as UK Labour leader by Starmer and Leonard has been replaced as Scottish Labour leader by Sarwar, Drakeford in Wales is the last Corbynista Labour leader left standing (though to be fair Wales was the only country Corbyn won in 2019, he lost England and Scotland)
another millionaire Labour leader will be a great boost for the sub regional office
Isn't Ian Blackford a multimillionaire? I seem to remember his company publishing an annual report recently lamenting the amount being paid out of the company coffers currently for funerals. Doesn't seem to prevent him trying to portray himself as a man of the people, so not sure why it should for Sarwar.
I'm sure all the goons who go on and on about Diane Abbott's choices on how her kid was educated will be totally on board with a millionaire that sends his kids to private school making a case for a socially just Scotland.
Narrator: of course they will because these people will endure any contortion of principle to save the Union.
Sarwar will be looking to attract Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP in central belt seats where Labour are the main alternative to the SNP, so sending his kids to private school will do him no harm on that front
Ah, bless him... He did it just to attract Conservative voters.... What a sacrifice to make!
But are you quite sure, young HY, that a large number of Conservative voters do not really approve of state education? In my day, they used to...
They approve of grammar schools certainly, they believe in choice whether private schools, free schools, academies etc too
Sarwar's defeat of Lennon is yet another defeat for Corbynites.
Now Corbyn has been replaced as UK Labour leader by Starmer and Leonard has been replaced as Scottish Labour leader by Sarwar, Drakeford in Wales is the last Corbynista Labour leader left standing (though to be fair Wales was the only country Corbyn won in 2019, he lost England and Scotland)
another millionaire Labour leader will be a great boost for the sub regional office
Isn't Ian Blackford a multimillionaire? I seem to remember his company publishing an annual report recently lamenting the amount being paid out of the company coffers currently for funerals. Doesn't seem to prevent him trying to portray himself as a man of the people, so not sure why it should for Sarwar.
Blackford is a former multimillionaire investment banker yes
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
The soaring house prices you referred to started under the Conservatives: they took off in 1994-5.
I'm afraid the housing market in this country is a completely bipartisan cockup.
I am not in that union, but why on earth is Unite spending so much on a conference centre? Particularly in the post covid Zoom era.
Because a lot of people not on the front line like your good self, who may not have seen first hand the devastation this disease can cause, are, increasingly, impatient not to have to use Zoom any more. It’s shit, unreliable, causes mental health problems (cannot find the citation admittedly) and starting to become something of a standing joke. That’s not particularly responsible from a public health perspective but is something I have noted as this long dark winter has drawn on. Zoom is considered to be like a mask - a regrettable necessity to be ditched as soon as it is safe to do so. I’ve got one client who point blank refuses to have a mediation via video link and is waiting until it is safe to do it in person.
I think your client may have a point. If it is a difficult relationship then zoom is not great
Sarwar's defeat of Lennon is yet another defeat for Corbynites.
Now Corbyn has been replaced as UK Labour leader by Starmer and Leonard has been replaced as Scottish Labour leader by Sarwar, Drakeford in Wales is the last Corbynista Labour leader left standing (though to be fair Wales was the only country Corbyn won in 2019, he lost England and Scotland)
another millionaire Labour leader will be a great boost for the sub regional office
Isn't Ian Blackford a multimillionaire? I seem to remember his company publishing an annual report recently lamenting the amount being paid out of the company coffers currently for funerals. Doesn't seem to prevent him trying to portray himself as a man of the people, so not sure why it should for Sarwar.
Blackford is a former multimillionaire investment banker yes
I know he's a !£$&^$^ ^**Y% )(*&^ $%&*(, but I can't comment on multimillionaire.
On a more serious note how is it some polls have the Lds on 11% and others on 5%?
Because polls are one step above guesswork - better than nothing, better than literally a guess, but so hard to get right consistently we only care because it keeps things interesting.
Returning to topic Liverpool Council are meeting in emergency session next Wednesday to consider a Lib Dem motion to abolish the mayoralty. The alternatives are to revert to the old committee system or a variation on the Cabinet system. It will be interesting to see how the Labour group will vote; it might get them out of their current difficulties.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
The soaring house prices you referred to started under the Conservatives: they took off in 1994-5.
I'm afraid the housing market in this country is a completely bipartisan cockup.
This may be a controversial question, but how does the increase in house prices look against the increase in dual income households over the last 60 years?
SLAB must have decided that they don’t want to win back their ex voters that switched to the SNP. Otherwise they would have chosen Monica Lennon. I would have thought that there more more votes to be won from the SNP than from the few Central Scotland unionist voters that would transfer from Tory to Labour.
There are few votes to be won from the SNP, the SNP nationalist vote might split between SNP, ISP and Green but they will not go Labour on the whole apart from a few Unionists who may vote SNP for Holyrood but are put of by their civil war. Labour made the correct choice to attract Unionist tactical votes and Sarwar was also the most popular choice amongst Scots
28% would see Scottish Labour at its highest vote in Scotland since 2011
And the poll does not say that.
It says 28% think he would make the best leader, which means he could get at least 28% of Scots to vote for him, Lennon only got 25%.
Given the SNP are a threat to the unity of the UK they must be stopped no matter what the cost, so in that sense it is good news Labour picked the most electable candidate
It does not mean anything of the sort. I'd have put him down as preferred leader believing he is less likely to win for Labour. Just as I've voted for RBL to lead Labour instead of Starmer.
Sarwar was the centrist candidate, like Starmer, Lennon was the leftwing candidate like RBL, so wrong comparison.
In Scotland anyway the SNP are the enemy so any gains SLab can make from the SNP is good news for Tories, as Sarwar opposes indyref2
You are, as always, ignoring the Scottish Greens (the LDs are more of a minority vote, and assuming for the moment that the Scottish Socialists aren't a major threat at the same level). They need to be considered in any analysis of the Scottish voting pattern which involves SLAB post-Mr Corbyn.
We Tories will of course refuse a legal indyref2 given there is already an SNP and Green government in Scotland, no mandate whatsoever for indyref2 comes from no change.
The failure of the SNP to get a thumping majority would just make it easier when Boris ignores Sturgeon
There is no such thing as a "SNP and Green" government in Scotland.
Again - you are not reading posts (though I see you are failing again to include the Greens in any analysis of pro-independence voting in the Scottish P{arliament, conveniently for your party line but very unhelpfully for those of us more concerned with reality (and betting)).
I am talking about the Labour/Green/SSP votes transferred as a result of Mr Sarwar winning the election and SKS as leader of the Labour Party.
There are no votes that will be transferred, SLab is already under 20% thanks to Corbyn and Leonard, he will win over Tory and LD tactical votes however and perhaps centrist SNP voters appalled at the SNP civil war
Corbyn got 32% in 2019 and the Tories got 43%, so even on this poll there has been a 3% swing from the Tories to Starmer Labour since 2019.
In fact on this poll the main swing since the last general election is from the LDs to the Greens (though more LD to Labour and to a lesser extent Labour to Green)
On housing the best developments I've seen have been on a micro level of 4-8 houses on small plots in villages and hamlets that imitate the vernacular, which is of course how they developed (slowly) originally.
I think any large-scale development more or less shits the bed unless you are willing to spend lots of money on craftsmen, which of course most large scale housing developers are not.
Returning to topic Liverpool Council are meeting in emergency session next Wednesday to consider a Lib Dem motion to abolish the mayoralty. The alternatives are to revert to the old committee system or a variation on the Cabinet system. It will be interesting to see how the Labour group will vote; it might get them out of their current difficulties.
People seem keener on returning to the committee system when they don't think they can actually win and appoint a Cabinet, it's like replacing FPTP that way for some. But it would be interesting to see if the majority group truly is riven.
I do love that if wiki is correct, Liverpool has 3 of the 9 remaining Liberal Party councillors in local government.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
The soaring house prices you referred to started under the Conservatives: they took off in 1994-5.
I'm afraid the housing market in this country is a completely bipartisan cockup.
Depends where, in the North and Midlands, Scotland, NI and Wales most people on average incomes can still buy a property without too many problems, it is in London and the South East where house prices remain out of reach for average earners without parental support and there that more affordable housing and help to buy needs to be focused
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Certainly the population increase had contributed to the problem, but pre-2008 I reckon a lot of the increase was related to the 100%+ mortgages and other nonsense.
Sarwar's defeat of Lennon is yet another defeat for Corbynites.
Now Corbyn has been replaced as UK Labour leader by Starmer and Leonard has been replaced as Scottish Labour leader by Sarwar, Drakeford in Wales is the last Corbynista Labour leader left standing (though to be fair Wales was the only country Corbyn won in 2019, he lost England and Scotland)
another millionaire Labour leader will be a great boost for the sub regional office
Isn't Ian Blackford a multimillionaire? I seem to remember his company publishing an annual report recently lamenting the amount being paid out of the company coffers currently for funerals. Doesn't seem to prevent him trying to portray himself as a man of the people, so not sure why it should for Sarwar.
what does he lead though. windbaggery at Westminster is no great thing , list donkeys in Holyrood are higher on the food chain than MP's.
Starmers error is the same as Blair, to think that you can ignore some voters as they will always turn out for Labour. Only that this time he is losing the left to the Greens rather than the right to UKIP.
All parties give lip service to green policies, the shift to Greens is being driven by those who reject Starmerism. In marginal seats they may be squeezed, but it is a threat that he should not ignore. I think the Greens will do well in May, especially in London.
For my taste, Prince Charles has too few periods of design he likes, and it all ends up a bit "ersatz history" and "Trumpton".
The recent 'Build Beautiful' document by Scruton was quite good imo.
But what is good design? And what is beautiful?
(Remember that tastes change constantly - in the 1960s they were happily putting dual carriageways through medieval town centres)
And what matters? For example, should we have permeable estates and street patterns, or should we follow crime prevention guidelines of the last 25 years and prevent scrotes having so many escape routes they are never caught?
Prince Charles’ favoured designs are what architecture by Classic FM would be like.
Corbyn got 32% in 2019 and the Tories got 43%, so even on this poll there has been a 3% swing from the Tories to Labour since 2019.
In fact on this poll the main swing since the last general election is from the LDs to the Greens (though more LD to Labour and to a lesser extent Labour to Green)
Looks like Corbyns 40% in 2017 may well be the high point never to be repeated
Despite all the bollox about Labour would be 20% ahead under any other leader we heard from SKS fans.
I’m not a fan, but I’m a lot more likely to vote Labour with him in charge than I would be if Corbyn or RLB were leader.
but you probably wont?
and currently Labour are going backward
I’d say 65/35 likely. My vote will either be for Labour of LD. Depends what they have to offer come the next GE. Both have plenty of room for improvement.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
The soaring house prices you referred to started under the Conservatives: they took off in 1994-5.
I'm afraid the housing market in this country is a completely bipartisan cockup.
Depends where, in the North and Midlands, Scotland, NI and Wales most people on average incomes can still buy a property without too many problems, it is in London and the South East where house prices remain out of reach for average earners without parental support and there that more affordable housing and help to buy needs to be focused
I agree. However, the Red Wall wouldn't look to kindly on yet another SE focussed plan. One targeted at those at least close to home ownership too. It is the antithesis of "levelling up".
For my taste, Prince Charles has too few periods of design he likes, and it all ends up a bit "ersatz history" and "Trumpton".
The recent 'Build Beautiful' document by Scruton was quite good imo.
But what is good design? And what is beautiful?
(Remember that tastes change constantly - in the 1960s they were happily putting dual carriageways through medieval town centres)
And what matters? For example, should we have permeable estates and street patterns, or should we follow crime prevention guidelines of the last 25 years and prevent scrotes having so many escape routes they are never caught?
Prince Charles’ favoured designs are what architecture by Classic FM would be like.
Yes, though Classic FM has the punters doesn't it?
Britain is by and large a middle brow middle class country when it comes to architecture, design and style. We have never as a country embraced the avant garde, outside a few metropolitan fashionistas.
It's amazing how primal my fantasies have become for post lockdown liberation: I want to eat the very best food in the very best restaurants with friends, drink like a fish, laugh as hard and as loud as I can, run really fast through a city centre, go to the top of a hill and take in an amazing view, maybe scream and sing at the same time, dance my legs off, flirt with girls, fuck like a champion, sleep the sleep of thousand dreams.
Ok, I'm happily married with a wide and child who both love me, and half of that isn't going to happen. But it's like I want to convince myself I'm still alive and I can still enjoy all of it to the max.
It's amazing how primal my fantasies have become for post lockdown liberation: I want to eat the very best food in the very best restaurants with friends, drink like a fish, laugh as hard and as loud as I can, run really fast through a city centre, go to the top of a hill and take in an amazing view, maybe scream and sing at the same time, dance my legs off, flirt with girls, fuck like a champion, sleep the sleep of thousand dreams.
I'd advise spreading that out over more than 1 night.
Sarwar's defeat of Lennon is yet another defeat for Corbynites.
Now Corbyn has been replaced as UK Labour leader by Starmer and Leonard has been replaced as Scottish Labour leader by Sarwar, Drakeford in Wales is the last Corbynista Labour leader left standing (though to be fair Wales was the only country Corbyn won in 2019, he lost England and Scotland)
another millionaire Labour leader will be a great boost for the sub regional office
Isn't Ian Blackford a multimillionaire? I seem to remember his company publishing an annual report recently lamenting the amount being paid out of the company coffers currently for funerals. Doesn't seem to prevent him trying to portray himself as a man of the people, so not sure why it should for Sarwar.
what does he lead though. windbaggery at Westminster is no great thing , list donkeys in Holyrood are higher on the food chain than MP's.
If WM is as insignificant as you suggest, I'm not sure why you're so keen on independence.
Starmers error is the same as Blair, to think that you can ignore some voters as they will always turn out for Labour. Only that this time he is losing the left to the Greens rather than the right to UKIP.
All parties give lip service to green policies, the shift to Greens is being driven by those who reject Starmerism. In marginal seats they may be squeezed, but it is a threat that he should not ignore. I think the Greens will do well in May, especially in London.
Starmer's error is the same as Blair? I'd hate to think how successful Blair would have been at winning elections if he hadn't made errors.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Certainly the population increase had contributed to the problem, but pre-2008 I reckon a lot of the increase was related to the 100%+ mortgages and other nonsense.
Perhaps. But either way from 1997 to 2010 house prices tripled but from 2010-2020 they increased by about a third.
A third is considerably less than tripling. Indeed its not that far off general inflation levels.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Certainly the population increase had contributed to the problem, but pre-2008 I reckon a lot of the increase was related to the 100%+ mortgages and other nonsense.
Perhaps. But either way from 1997 to 2010 house prices tripled but from 2010-2020 they increased by about a third.
A third is considerably less than tripling. Indeed its not that far off general inflation levels.
But from a much higher base. Really, we needed them to stagnate if not fall slightly.
On housing the best developments I've seen have been on a micro level of 4-8 houses on small plots in villages and hamlets that imitate the vernacular, which is of course how they developed (slowly) originally.
I think any large-scale development more or less shits the bed unless you are willing to spend lots of money on craftsmen, which of course most large scale housing developers are not.
Liberalising planning consent would make this more viable not less. Planning being so difficult to get is what encourages developers to build estates. If you're going through all the rigmarole of getting consent, you might as well get consent for a lot - and its easier if they're all a copy and paste identikit boxes.
In countries with zonal planning permission as I advocate, where consent is easy to achieve so long as you meet pre-existing building rules it is far easier to build small developments instead of putting all your eggs into large estates.
It's amazing how primal my fantasies have become for post lockdown liberation: I want to eat the very best food in the very best restaurants with friends, drink like a fish, laugh as hard and as loud as I can, run really fast through a city centre, go to the top of a hill and take in an amazing view, maybe scream and sing at the same time, dance my legs off, flirt with girls, fuck like a champion, sleep the sleep of thousand dreams.
There’s a lot of this going on TBF. The Reading Festival has just sold out. Holiday bookings are through the roof. The Govt’s going to have a heck of a problem if there is any sort of setback before 21 June.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Certainly the population increase had contributed to the problem, but pre-2008 I reckon a lot of the increase was related to the 100%+ mortgages and other nonsense.
Perhaps. But either way from 1997 to 2010 house prices tripled but from 2010-2020 they increased by about a third.
A third is considerably less than tripling. Indeed its not that far off general inflation levels.
But from a much higher base. Really, we needed them to stagnate if not fall slightly.
Indeed. The damage was done and its hard to reverse it now. They are relatively stagnant now compared to what it was.
Liberalising planning consent would allow more construction, would add more supply, would see prices fall gradually as new stocks are added. There's no need to have major increases in interest rates to achieve that - the prices rose in the first place when rates were much higher than today anyway.
Starmers error is the same as Blair, to think that you can ignore some voters as they will always turn out for Labour. Only that this time he is losing the left to the Greens rather than the right to UKIP.
All parties give lip service to green policies, the shift to Greens is being driven by those who reject Starmerism. In marginal seats they may be squeezed, but it is a threat that he should not ignore. I think the Greens will do well in May, especially in London.
Starmer's error is the same as Blair? I'd hate to think how successful Blair would have been at winning elections if he hadn't made errors.
Yes, but political time has sped up. It took 20 years of Blairism to erode the Red Wall. It cannot be regained by the same policies that lost it, particularly while shedding votes on the other wing to the Greens.
I don't see much evidence that the Red Wall wants New Labour back, indeed the opposite.
I was a Labour member then, but am not now. I see little reason to return.
Starmers error is the same as Blair, to think that you can ignore some voters as they will always turn out for Labour. Only that this time he is losing the left to the Greens rather than the right to UKIP.
All parties give lip service to green policies, the shift to Greens is being driven by those who reject Starmerism. In marginal seats they may be squeezed, but it is a threat that he should not ignore. I think the Greens will do well in May, especially in London.
Starmer's error is the same as Blair? I'd hate to think how successful Blair would have been at winning elections if he hadn't made errors.
Yes, but political time has sped up. It took 20 years of Blairism to erode the Red Wall. It cannot be regained by the same policies that lost it, particularly while shedding votes on the other wing to the Greens.
I don't see much evidence that the Red Wall wants New Labour back, indeed the opposite.
I was a Labour member then, but am not now. I see little reason to return.
I don't see much evidence that the Red Wall wants watermelon Greens or the far left either. Indeed the opposite.
The Red Wall sees the Tories delivering and wants that to continue. Long may it continue.
Starmers error is the same as Blair, to think that you can ignore some voters as they will always turn out for Labour. Only that this time he is losing the left to the Greens rather than the right to UKIP.
All parties give lip service to green policies, the shift to Greens is being driven by those who reject Starmerism. In marginal seats they may be squeezed, but it is a threat that he should not ignore. I think the Greens will do well in May, especially in London.
Starmer's error is the same as Blair? I'd hate to think how successful Blair would have been at winning elections if he hadn't made errors.
Yes, but political time has sped up. It took 20 years of Blairism to erode the Red Wall. It cannot be regained by the same policies that lost it, particularly while shedding votes on the other wing to the Greens.
I don't see much evidence that the Red Wall wants New Labour back, indeed the opposite.
I was a Labour member then, but am not now. I see little reason to return.
Corbyn is a Blairite? It’s a view, I suppose.
Not that I think Blairites would automatically win those seats back.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 452,777 16,226 469,003 East Of England 52,671 2,326 54,997 London 57,113 2,687 59,800 Midlands 97,016 3,525 100,541 North East And Yorkshire 66,808 2,200 69,008 North West 60,911 1,147 62,058 South East 66,911 2,125 69,036 South West 49,026 2,190 51,216
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Certainly the population increase had contributed to the problem, but pre-2008 I reckon a lot of the increase was related to the 100%+ mortgages and other nonsense.
Perhaps. But either way from 1997 to 2010 house prices tripled but from 2010-2020 they increased by about a third.
A third is considerably less than tripling. Indeed its not that far off general inflation levels.
But from a much higher base. Really, we needed them to stagnate if not fall slightly.
Indeed. The damage was done and its hard to reverse it now. They are relatively stagnant now compared to what it was.
Liberalising planning consent would allow more construction, would add more supply, would see prices fall gradually as new stocks are added. There's no need to have major increases in interest rates to achieve that - the prices rose in the first place when rates were much higher than today anyway.
The thing that gets forgotten is the part played by double incomes. That increase was a big part of the price surge it the late 90s.
Why does it seem like every Tory housing policy falls apart when inspected?
I agree, but then again I must have missed the amazing triumph of Labour's housing policy.
The only way to solve the housing crisis is to ride roughshod over Nimbys, but neither party has had the balls to when in government.
Forget Nimbys. Forget property developers building overpriced little boxes in the already over-crowded south-east. Forget BTLs and landbanks. Build new towns, especially up north. We need to generate more economic activity in less well-off areas. We could call it levelling up.
Why does it seem like every Tory housing policy falls apart when inspected?
I agree, but then again I must have missed the amazing triumph of Labour's housing policy.
The only way to solve the housing crisis is to ride roughshod over Nimbys, but neither party has had the balls to when in government.
Forget Nimbys. Forget property developers building overpriced little boxes in the already over-crowded south-east. Forget BTLs and landbanks. Build new towns, especially up north. We need to generate more economic activity in less well-off areas. We could call it levelling up.
Unfortunately, people have to want to live in the houses you build, otherwise you just end up building ghost towns, or permanently subsidised ghettoes. So you have to build them in areas people want to live, which means around London and a few prosperous mostly southern cities.
Or we make people want to live in new towns by encouraging employers, and thus jobs to move there. We provide modern broadband infrastructure so people can WFH. This is what even Conservative governments used to do.
Not new towns. Existing towns.
We should encourage medium density (maybe around 6 stories max) in city and town centres with underground parking instead of sprawling suburbia. We also need better transport links of which HS2 is one.
Most people - especially once they start to reproduce - don't want flats.
The fact that several million of them are presently worthless and at constant risk of bursting into flames and visiting an agonizing death upon their occupants doesn't really help.
You’re right. But what’s the answer?
Everyone hates sprawling suburbia but they also want a detached house with a big garden but with excellent transport links to a major city.
I think people would be open to flats more if they were built with dedicated secure underground parking, they were good quality, they were beautiful, they were not huge tower blocks, they had good sound insulation, they were spacious, and they were not at danger of engulfing in flames...
Starmers error is the same as Blair, to think that you can ignore some voters as they will always turn out for Labour. Only that this time he is losing the left to the Greens rather than the right to UKIP.
All parties give lip service to green policies, the shift to Greens is being driven by those who reject Starmerism. In marginal seats they may be squeezed, but it is a threat that he should not ignore. I think the Greens will do well in May, especially in London.
Starmer's error is the same as Blair? I'd hate to think how successful Blair would have been at winning elections if he hadn't made errors.
Starmer's error is that he is slavishly following Blair -- but the times really have changed out of all recognition since 1997.
Blair looked fresh & imaginative in 1997. Starmer just doesn't in 2021.
Partly this is because Starmer does not have Blair's lethal charm & partly because -- as Blair's mini-me -- it comes across as though Starmer has no ideas of his own.
Labour made the wrong choice.
There is still time to fix it. They need a rush of Aussie Labor to the head -- the ALP ruthlessly knives under-performing leaders.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Certainly the population increase had contributed to the problem, but pre-2008 I reckon a lot of the increase was related to the 100%+ mortgages and other nonsense.
Perhaps. But either way from 1997 to 2010 house prices tripled but from 2010-2020 they increased by about a third.
A third is considerably less than tripling. Indeed its not that far off general inflation levels.
But from a much higher base. Really, we needed them to stagnate if not fall slightly.
Indeed. The damage was done and its hard to reverse it now. They are relatively stagnant now compared to what it was.
Liberalising planning consent would allow more construction, would add more supply, would see prices fall gradually as new stocks are added. There's no need to have major increases in interest rates to achieve that - the prices rose in the first place when rates were much higher than today anyway.
The thing that gets forgotten is the part played by double incomes. That increase was a big part of the price surge it the late 90s.
Double incomes didn't begin in the 90s and doesn't excuse prices tripling.
The government will offer incentives to lenders, bringing back 95% mortgages which have "virtually disappeared" during the pandemic, the Treasury said.
Fine.
It is not restricted to first-time buyers or new-build homes, but there will be a £600,000 limit.
So actually it's not for young people at all, anyone who fancies a new home to rent can use this, this won't solve the problem, it will just drive up prices further.
The Tories do not care about young people owning houses, this policy is a con.
BTL needs no help whatsoever. Yields of up to 5% vs borrow at cheap as chips.
BTL is a horrific business for amateurs.
Yields are low and risk and complexity high.
It’s certainly one we avoid unless part of a broader initiative
Agree with that, except that one major portion of the PRS that is being killed on the vine is the traditional amateur LL with one house who doesn't want to sell it and needs a normal civilised T who just wants to be left alone on a normal rent for years.
That is where many pet tenancies have been, and these are now much more difficult following the last lot of laws, ostensibly about 'fees'. Many of the management approcahes preferred by Tenants were turned into offences.
Many, many Ts like that, but that sector is going.
Those are being driven out by taxation and massively over the top regulation. Part of it is the usual "London solutions everywhere for problems that do not exist elsewhere" faux-pas.
Someone quoted 5% return on the thread. Now we are in a period of fairly flat houseprices (more or less the same as inflation for the last decade aiui) a 5% return is a mugs' game.
Really pissed off having scraped together a relatively (well, for anywhere except London) decent deposit, that might, at a push, buy a half decent two bed somewhere not on fire.
Yay, more house price inflation. Guess I'll just rent for another few years. Thanks Rishi, wasn't voting for you anyway, but. Yup.
What are you talking about?
If your deposit was enough to buy a two bed at 10% deposit, then with Rishi's scheme it should be enough eg for you to buy a three bed at 5%.
Why are you pissed off, you're exactly the kind of person this scheme is aiming to help? 😕
The cost of the asset I'd be borrowing a chunk of money for is being artificially inflated by government policy. What's required is lower prices, so I have to pay less back over the life of a mortgage.
I guess the point is I'm in a slightly advantageous position that I'm not a 5% borrower. This is how my financial prudence over the years has been rewarded, rock bottom interest rates and souring asset prices.
Souring?
If you mean soaring then no, house prices haven't soared over the past decade. They did soar when Labour were in charge, they've grown relatively slowly over the past decade.
The deposit is the hardest part of getting a house, not the amount you pay over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the lifetime of a mortgage you'll pay less in mortgage repayments than you would in rent - it is the deposit that is the stumbling block people struggle with the most
PS why the heck would you as a prospective buyer be whinging about low interest rates? Literally nothing you are writing makes any sense whatsoever. Low interest rates are good for buyers.
With respect, I think I understand my financial circumstances better than you.
You are talking to @Philip_Thompson in respect of whom the word “omniscience” is a woeful understatement; so no, you don’t understand better.
Well if I was wrong then perhaps say what was wrong rather than petulant ad hominem remarks.
Do you think high or low interest rates are best for buyers?
Not if they are permanently low - but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Buying at a high price with assistance on the deposit, at rock bottom interest rates is potentially a financial trap for a lot of people.
Increasing supply rather than demand might be preferable.
Increasing supply is the best long term solution, I 100% agree with that. I am a massive advocate for supply side reforms of this market.
In the meantime though helping owner occupiers while taxing BTLs is a good combination. Especially if the tax on BTL pays for the help towards owner occupiers getting their deposits.
What are your proposals for taxing BTLs?
Bearing in mind the sector has now been under the cosh for quite some time, and came to a screeching halt in 2016 after Osborne's 'Gordon Brown' budget in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember which, but so complicated no one could understand the impact including probably Osborne himself), and has been at best flat since.
Chart from the latest English Housing Survey.
Flat is a good start, Osborne did a good job there. The question is how to get it onto a downward trend now without majorly upsetting the applecart. Possibly adding 1% to that precept and using that to fund the HTB extension might be a good idea?
Next I'd suggest when Council Tax is reformed making the owner of the property be the one who pays the bill rather than the tenant. Yes that may mean rents are increased but not likely by more than the cost of the Council Tax.
Plus of course removing any tax relief that BTL gets.
You need to justify why you would shrink a Private Rental sector that is already smaller than in many other comparable countries.
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
I don't want to eliminate the private rental sector, just gradually get it back to what it was stable at until the end of the 20th century according to your chart - and get the amount buying with mortgage back up to what it used to be according to your chart instead.
Why do you think 8-10% is the right number?
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
It’s NOT a free market. People don’t have £300k in the bank and think “I quite like that property, I’ll buy it.”
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
While I agree with all the rest of what you have written can I please point out the market got distorted before interest rates hit rock bottom.
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
Certainly the population increase had contributed to the problem, but pre-2008 I reckon a lot of the increase was related to the 100%+ mortgages and other nonsense.
Perhaps. But either way from 1997 to 2010 house prices tripled but from 2010-2020 they increased by about a third.
A third is considerably less than tripling. Indeed its not that far off general inflation levels.
But from a much higher base. Really, we needed them to stagnate if not fall slightly.
Indeed. The damage was done and its hard to reverse it now. They are relatively stagnant now compared to what it was.
Liberalising planning consent would allow more construction, would add more supply, would see prices fall gradually as new stocks are added. There's no need to have major increases in interest rates to achieve that - the prices rose in the first place when rates were much higher than today anyway.
There is one serious fly in that ointment, and it's one that's only become apparent to me since becoming a councillor (and one who pays a LOT of attention to the planning permission and new development area, as I want to see supply rise and prices drop):
Developers know about supply and demand.
It's bloody obvious when I think of it, but I never really dwelt on it before. We issue planning permission for, say, 4500 houses. They decide to build out at a rate of 250 houses per year. "Due to market pressures."
They don't want prices to crater, because then they'd make a loss on the land they bought at overblown prices.
Of course, if prices drop, land prices will drop, but the monkey's fist is already in the bottle. He can't extract it without releasing those juicy sweets.
Developers will never willingly build out at sufficient a rate to bring house prices down - a slow upwards trend is better for them. If house prices aren't coming down, the value of the land isn't coming down with it. And we're stuck in the loop.
We're looking hard at the land we already own as a council with the view to finding suitable locations and commissioning self-build-support for people and finding a way to fund a chunky amount of social housing (think of it as "trickle-up" - as long as the numbers are increasing, the pressure on house prices will decrease).
But we went past the point where we could just liberalise planning consent (we've issued significantly more permissions than would be needed to support a national rate of 450,000 per year if everywhere went like we did) but the developers just won't build out fast enough off their own bat. I mean, it would be irrational for them to do so - no-one wants to shoot the hen that lays the golden eggs.
Comments
Stopping Scottish independence at all costs is the top priority of this Tory government for the rest of its term so in that sense Sarwar's win helps on that front
That in the election for the Scottish Parliament not a direct election for Independence.
This may effect the SNP vote and they may becoming to complacent.
The failure of the SNP to get a thumping majority would just make it easier when Boris ignores Sturgeon
On the house price discussion, @guybrush is spot on. The housing market looks like a pyramid scheme and I’ve decided that I’m better off staying with my parents. It’s a little depressing, but I think there’s a chance that the whole thing comes tumbling down.
Again - you are not reading posts (though I see you are failing again to include the Greens in any analysis of pro-independence voting in the Scottish P{arliament, conveniently for your party line but very unhelpfully for those of us more concerned with reality (and betting)).
I am talking about the Labour/Green/SSP votes transferred as a result of Mr Sarwar winning the election and SKS as leader of the Labour Party.
An average of 27 different samples - whether 27 values at one time, or 7 values to get a rolling mean - will always be smoother.
There was not actually a big spike in the UK compared to "the EU", as per Tim Walker's claim. The was a big spike compared to some countries, and not to others. To illustrate, here is Tim's chart comparing the UK to the *EU AVERAGE*.
https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1365424048763731977
And here is a chart of the same number, comparing the UK to a selection (about 20) EU countries. The claim that the EU was entirely and completely different to the UK is exagerrated (to be kind).
There are may things you can say reaosonably, but what Tim said is not one of them.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1365634042402643978
Do you think that people who rent should not have a reasonable choice of places to live, or that rents should be forced higher by restricting supply etc?
The Kent Covid is the only explanation for that chart.
So in summary:
a) The holiday businesses maintain their higher inclusive Vat prices (which they can do if the demand is there) and keep a bigger slice of it.
b) Not sure about this reply. I must admit I hadn't thought about new businesses, which is vital, but I'm not sure if many will pay Corp Tax in the early years anyway. The old ones are covered by my previous comments. They will have losses brought forward to offset against Corp Tax and also if expanding, Capital Allowances. So I can only see Corporation Tax being paid by those that were thriving during the pandemic in the next few years. Would be useful to see some data to know whether I am talking bollocks as I am just making assumptions.
She’s managed to save up a chunky deposit.
The problem is that any half-decent house around here costs 250k+
Which means that a salary of 40k and a deposit of 50k might get her a shoebox in a dodgy area of Didcot, if she’s lucky.
As she watches the house prices continue to accelerate away.
Houses are overvalued.
That’s the issue.
Everything else is pissing about at the margins. Including “Help to get further into debt” or messing about with deposits.
For my taste, Prince Charles has too few periods of design he likes, and it all ends up a bit "ersatz history" and "Trumpton".
The recent 'Build Beautiful' document by Scruton was quite good imo.
But what is good design? And what is beautiful?
(Remember that tastes change constantly - in the 1960s they were happily putting dual carriageways through medieval town centres)
And what matters? For example, should we have permeable estates and street patterns, or should we follow crime prevention guidelines of the last 25 years and prevent scrotes having so many escape routes they are never caught?
You may be financially able to do so, but, rather crucially, the lenders don’t accept that as proof that you could afford to do so.
As a rule of thumb, they won’t lend you enough for that.
We know quite a few trapped into paying more per month in rent than they would be paying on a mortgage for a similar property, but not being able to get a mortgage for that because “it’s unaffordable for you.”
bloody good question. johnson told us he had a plan ready. where is it?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/27/dont-reform-social-care-now-will/
And is that not a strange stance for a free marketeer - to decide what sort of tenure other people should live under?
One specific problem is that there are probably more people than that who will not be able to get a mortgage, or buy a house even if prices shifted down significantly, never mind people who would rather have someone else look after it or are mobile workers etc.
I'd call it an awful muckup by Osborne, not least because he choked off billions of investment in improving housing that was not being made by anyone else, and I am not aware has been replaced since.
(Yes, there are a lot of issues there, and I'm about to pop out - will reply later.)
b) You're right. But people consider Corp Tax etc when choosing whether to invest in the first place. Because they're ambitious to make (and keep) a profit in the future. If they think they're not going to get as much money in the future (because it'll be taxed away) then they're less likely to invest now, when we need that investment the most.
Anything that makes it easier to buy a house just puts the price up to the point at which it's as hard as it was before, assuming the stock is fixed and there are enough people wanting to buy?
Yes it is a strange stance. If I was dictator and able to rule by whim I'd do the supply side reforms I advocate instead, liberating the housing market and letting anyone build whatever they want to on their own land. That would fix the housing issues and see house prices plummet as a result, the free market would work.
But we don't have a free market now and no party, not even the Tories, are allowing a free market to develop. So until massive supply side planning reforms these relatively minor tax tweaks help rebalance the economy to sooth the failings caused by the planning consent boosting the wealth of owners and punishing those who want to buy.
Leaving interest rates at rock bottom for 12 years has distorted the market. The idea that people have chosen to rent rather than buy is utterly stupid.
The problem is that we’ve got so many people on the ladder who would not be able to afford a moderate rate rise. So we carry on as we are hoping that the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
What do you think will happen in the Budget re these two taxes regardless of the rights and wrongs?
I think he will not change the Vat situation for at least a year, if for no other reason than it will be popular with people thinking they are paying less for stuff (even if in reality they are not). So chancellor being nice to the people.
I think he may do something on Corporation Tax or some sort of windfall tax on those businesses that thrived during the pandemic (no idea how). Chancellor on the side of the people making sure we are all in it together.
House prices shot up 2000-2010, house price to wage ratios kept increasing, interest rates were higher than they have been for the past decade, BTLers entered the market, the proportion of first time buyers collapsed.
Post 2010 we've seen low interest rates, house price to wage ratios slowly reverse, house prices relatively stable, BTL stabilise (but not go into reverse), first time buyers going back up gradually.
The damage of 2000-2010 was tremendous and needs to be reversed, its gradually being so with low interest rates. I see no evidence increasing interest rates to the levels that they were during the 2000-2010 period while house prices were shooting up would do that.
Yields are low and risk and complexity high.
It’s certainly one we avoid unless part of a broader initiative
2000-2010 population increased much more than housing stocks did. That caused the house prices to surge. The interest rate falls came after the house price rises, not before it.
The other thing is the pain of negative equity. I am old enough to remember that in the early nineties, when minimal deposit mortgages set up that problem. History repeats itself when memories have faded.
There are certain universal principles as to what pleases the human eye, and they have good 'primeval' reasons. We prefer natural, or natural looking materials, as they evoke lush, fertile, natural landscape. We prefer curves and undulations to jagged edges for the same reason. We prefer thick looking walls with deeply recessed windows, because they look like the buildings will be safer and warmer. We prefer rich decoration to lack of ornament because it reflects wealth and abundance. If we develop these and other natural preferences into a set of principles for beautiful buildings, we can steer clear of monstrosities, whatever the trends of the future - that would be incredibly worthwhile.
Regarding Prince Charles, all the criticism I have seen of Poundbury and his other architectural pastiches seems to be that they lack authenticity - comparing them to real 18th and 19th century buildings. That is not a valid comparison, because there was never any possibility of 18th and 19th century buildings being conjured up. The real comparison is with modern grey rabbit hutches, and I think few of his critics would not overcome their aversion to Poundbury if their alternative was living on a grey estate in Crawley or Milton Keynes.
If the SNP fail to win a majority they will not even be able to hold an irrelevant referendum
https://www.haddonstone.com/en-gb/case-studies/royal-pavilion-poundbury/
Prince Charles may be an idiot when it comes to alternative medicine but he's spot on about architecture.
But are you quite sure, young HY, that a large number of Conservative voters do not really approve of state education? In my day, they used to...
Labour now going backwards in every poll?
I'm afraid the housing market in this country is a completely bipartisan cockup.
Because polls are one step above guesswork - better than nothing, better than literally a guess, but so hard to get right consistently we only care because it keeps things interesting.
It must have had an effect in pushing prices up.
In fact on this poll the main swing since the last general election is from the LDs to the Greens (though more LD to Labour and to a lesser extent Labour to Green)
I think any large-scale development more or less shits the bed unless you are willing to spend lots of money on craftsmen, which of course most large scale housing developers are not.
I do love that if wiki is correct, Liverpool has 3 of the 9 remaining Liberal Party councillors in local government.
and currently Labour are going backward
All parties give lip service to green policies, the shift to Greens is being driven by those who reject Starmerism. In marginal seats they may be squeezed, but it is a threat that he should not ignore. I think the Greens will do well in May, especially in London.
Despite all the bollox about Labour would be 20% ahead under any other leader we heard from SKS fans.
Britain is by and large a middle brow middle class country when it comes to architecture, design and style. We have never as a country embraced the avant garde, outside a few metropolitan fashionistas.
Ok, I'm happily married with a wide and child who both love me, and half of that isn't going to happen. But it's like I want to convince myself I'm still alive and I can still enjoy all of it to the max.
A third is considerably less than tripling. Indeed its not that far off general inflation levels.
In countries with zonal planning permission as I advocate, where consent is easy to achieve so long as you meet pre-existing building rules it is far easier to build small developments instead of putting all your eggs into large estates.
Liberalising planning consent would allow more construction, would add more supply, would see prices fall gradually as new stocks are added. There's no need to have major increases in interest rates to achieve that - the prices rose in the first place when rates were much higher than today anyway.
I don't see much evidence that the Red Wall wants New Labour back, indeed the opposite.
I was a Labour member then, but am not now. I see little reason to return.
The Red Wall sees the Tories delivering and wants that to continue. Long may it continue.
Not that I think Blairites would automatically win those seats back.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date
Total 452,777 16,226 469,003
East Of England 52,671 2,326 54,997
London 57,113 2,687 59,800
Midlands 97,016 3,525 100,541
North East And Yorkshire 66,808 2,200 69,008
North West 60,911 1,147 62,058
South East 66,911 2,125 69,036
South West 49,026 2,190 51,216
Blair looked fresh & imaginative in 1997. Starmer just doesn't in 2021.
Partly this is because Starmer does not have Blair's lethal charm & partly because -- as Blair's mini-me -- it comes across as though Starmer has no ideas of his own.
Labour made the wrong choice.
There is still time to fix it. They need a rush of Aussie Labor to the head -- the ALP ruthlessly knives under-performing leaders.
That is where many pet tenancies have been, and these are now much more difficult following the last lot of laws, ostensibly about 'fees'. Many of the management approcahes preferred by Tenants were turned into offences.
Many, many Ts like that, but that sector is going.
Those are being driven out by taxation and massively over the top regulation. Part of it is the usual "London solutions everywhere for problems that do not exist elsewhere" faux-pas.
Someone quoted 5% return on the thread. Now we are in a period of fairly flat houseprices (more or less the same as inflation for the last decade aiui) a 5% return is a mugs' game.
Developers know about supply and demand.
It's bloody obvious when I think of it, but I never really dwelt on it before.
We issue planning permission for, say, 4500 houses.
They decide to build out at a rate of 250 houses per year. "Due to market pressures."
They don't want prices to crater, because then they'd make a loss on the land they bought at overblown prices.
Of course, if prices drop, land prices will drop, but the monkey's fist is already in the bottle. He can't extract it without releasing those juicy sweets.
Developers will never willingly build out at sufficient a rate to bring house prices down - a slow upwards trend is better for them.
If house prices aren't coming down, the value of the land isn't coming down with it. And we're stuck in the loop.
We're looking hard at the land we already own as a council with the view to finding suitable locations and commissioning self-build-support for people and finding a way to fund a chunky amount of social housing (think of it as "trickle-up" - as long as the numbers are increasing, the pressure on house prices will decrease).
But we went past the point where we could just liberalise planning consent (we've issued significantly more permissions than would be needed to support a national rate of 450,000 per year if everywhere went like we did) but the developers just won't build out fast enough off their own bat. I mean, it would be irrational for them to do so - no-one wants to shoot the hen that lays the golden eggs.