It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Government actions are all about increasing the number of competing buyers for each house, which means the successful bidders have to pay more to get their hands on them. The stamp duty holiday, the old help to buy scheme and the new proposal for underwriting sub-prime mortgages were or are all intended to have the same effect: namely, to enrich existing homeowners when they sell.
If the Government were serious about making housing more affordable to more people then it would be doing something radical to stimulate supply. It isn't. QED.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
I would think it better suited to a Southern Californian climate. Rattan suffers a bit in the damp of England, and those cushions and rug would be a pain.
We are going to have to see a big expansion in capacity shortly, otherwise second doses are going to start having an impact on the amount of new people who can get jabbed.
From discussions the other evening, I seem to recall that the CCGs and vaccination centres have been told to expect a big push not from this week just about to start, but the one after - large increase in supply for "several weeks," although exactly what 'several' means has not been precisely defined.
If they can double supply for at least a month then hopefully that'll be enough to at least get the fortysomethings through the first doses (he says, hopefully,) before really large numbers of second shots come due. After that we'll presumably be reliant on J&J and Novavax if the under 40s aren't to be kept waiting for a long time; Moderna should be coming through in the not-too-distant future but there won't be enough of it to cover two doses for more than about four or five year groups.
I am just back from my AZN. Strangely anticlimactic after all the waiting and hype. They said they’d been doing 500 a day at the main vaccination centre every day since they opened.
Well done. Any special plans for your "flu day" tomorrow?
I’ve just been doing some rapid sums, and the DfE have got their figures wrong on school holidays (amazingly, a bunch of innumerate idiots can’t add up).
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
OT - some amazing (but expected) results in the SNP candidate elections for Holyrood if this leaked list is accurate.
Due to the automatic advancement of 4 disabled and 4 BAME candidates to the top of the lists, some relatively unpopular candidates have the top placing.
Examples include:
West Scotland: Michelle Campbell from 8th place and 4.4% vote share over Stuart McMillan 18.3% Mid Scotland and Fife: Eva Comrie from 8th and 6.5% over J Swinney 18.6% Highlnds and Islands: Emma Rodick frrom 6th and 2.4% over Kate Forbes 31.8%(!)
It will surely go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in the history of Public Health. What were they thinking? Macron, Merkel, all of them. Truly truly bizarre, and completely unnecessary. They gained absolutely nothing, and they have killed people
I still don't really understand WHY they did it, apart from some kind of petty spite against Britain because Brexit, and Astra-Zeneca because failed deliveries - but the UK suffered those as well, and we didn't then denounce the vaccine as ineffective to "get at" the company.
MAD
Can you imagine if it had been Boris that had done it?!
Yes. He'd get away with it as he does with everything.
Yes indeed. One of the main reasons Starmer has little to no chance of besting him electorally
It's pretty close to being without merit though. Black, smooth cheeks, glasses. I don't in all honesty see much more than that and I'm usually quite good at these things.
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
It will surely go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in the history of Public Health. What were they thinking? Macron, Merkel, all of them. Truly truly bizarre, and completely unnecessary. They gained absolutely nothing, and they have killed people
I still don't really understand WHY they did it, apart from some kind of petty spite against Britain because Brexit, and Astra-Zeneca because failed deliveries - but the UK suffered those as well, and we didn't then denounce the vaccine as ineffective to "get at" the company.
MAD
Can you imagine if it had been Boris that had done it?!
Yes. He'd get away with it as he does with everything.
Yes indeed. One of the main reasons Starmer has little to no chance of besting him electorally
Needs a lot of help from the economy - let's just say that.
I would think it better suited to a Southern Californian climate. Rattan suffers a bit in the damp of England, and those cushions and rug would be a pain.
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
Was she not happy that he agreed to remoove the offensive diction? After all, she showed him who's Bos.
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
Was she not happy that he agreed to remoove the offensive diction? After all, she showed him who's Bos.
Perhaps you should support the Burning Pink Party, if you fancy eco-authoritarianism. Their manifesto includes abolishing the London Mayor and Assembly and replacing them with a system of decision making Soviets. They take a pretty hard line on the environment. This is their London Mayor candidate:
I don't want citizens assemblies. I don't trust the citizens.
Consider it a step to Stalinism...
Agree. Citizens Assemblies are one of the the things people campaign for when they really want to dissolve the electorate and find an alternative, more compliant one. Behind it is a dislike of ordinary people and their opinions.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
It's pretty close to being without merit though. Black, smooth cheeks, glasses. I don't in all honesty see much more than that and I'm usually quite good at these things.
That's unusually lacking in terms of insinuation, by your standards. I can see it is still in there, but you've clearly worked hard to disguise it. Well done!
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
Was she not happy that he agreed to remoove the offensive diction? After all, she showed him who's Bos.
I think it’s more that she was bov-verred.
Perhaps he had mistaken her for the Honourable Member for Uddersfield?
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
Except that you're missing two very important points.
Even if the price goes up to match the amount of tax that would have been due they're no worse off. If the price goes up by less than the tax that would have been due they're still better off.
Tax and house prices are not the same thing. Tax needs paying up front 100% and doesn't count towards your mortgage equity. If the price goes up then the amount you would have put up front in tax can be contributed towards your equity in your deposit.
In neither scenario are you worse off by not having to pay the tax. The idea you're better off with lower house prices but tax on top is entirely myopic.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
In this, the Scottish Tories have a very definite point. Swinney has been the enabler of the Salmondgate cover-up, treating Holyrood as a pathetic parish council to be manipulated, ignored and deceived with impunity. If they have any bollocks, or self respect, Scottish MPs must take revenge
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
Was she not happy that he agreed to remoove the offensive diction? After all, she showed him who's Bos.
I think it’s more that she was bov-verred.
Perhaps he had mistaken her for the Honourable Member for Uddersfield?
Perhaps given she was the member for Peckham, he should have accused her of chickening out?
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
More anecdotals, I've a close family member who has had dealings with William's professional staff via work. My impression is the staff in question isn't the type to throw out these sort of allegations lightly. Ok, Meghan probably isn't the only primadonna member of the Royal family, but the reality of the situation contrasts hugely with the image the Sussex's are trying to project (and the reality of William/Kate - by all accounts unflashy and hard working).
As Charles mentioned a few days ago, Harry strikes me a a bit of a lost soul who has never really dealt with the loss of his mother and was probably most at home in the Army, where he couldn't stay put due to circumstances beyond his control. Enter Meghan, and in the space of a few years there's a kid on the scene, Harry is physically, financially isolated and estranged from his family - especially his brother. I'm very concerned for him.
This all sounds like the same old Palace clique deploying the same basic line they used against Princess Diana. Fact they believe their own press releases does NOT make them (to coin a phrase) "fair and balanced".
What IS interesting, is that they are using the same basic line as we deployed by their chinless wonder predecessors in the Palace a generation ago versus Princess Diana. AND with a very similar degree of obvious ineptitude.
Meaning they are HELPING rather than hurting Meghan, methinks.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
Was she not happy that he agreed to remoove the offensive diction? After all, she showed him who's Bos.
I think it’s more that she was bov-verred.
Perhaps he had mistaken her for the Honourable Member for Uddersfield?
I’ve just been doing some rapid sums, and the DfE have got their figures wrong on school holidays (amazingly, a bunch of innumerate idiots can’t add up).
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
Quick check indicates that at least some of the schools who experimented with the idea in the early 2000s reverted back to the traditional year structure.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Government actions are all about increasing the number of competing buyers for each house, which means the successful bidders have to pay more to get their hands on them. The stamp duty holiday, the old help to buy scheme and the new proposal for underwriting sub-prime mortgages were or are all intended to have the same effect: namely, to enrich existing homeowners when they sell.
If the Government were serious about making housing more affordable to more people then it would be doing something radical to stimulate supply. It isn't. QED.
Except supply of houses is increasing. It would be better for it to increase more, but it is increasing already.
But the notion you're better off if you pay more tax and less in house prices - that's just innumerate. You can't compare house price alone, you need to compare the full amount spent as well as how and when its spent.
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
There, I would challenge whether "radical" environmentalism is necessary.
For me, the Greens have to drop their pseudo-socialism / desire for micro-control by Government - as it is not the guaranteed efficient way to run anything.
They don't have anything to entice people if they drop that stuff. They may not be shooting for mass appeal but they do want to be more than just a pressure group, and the other parties can and do catch up to them on green issues. So they have to have another reason for people to vote for them besides green issues.
I’ve just been doing some rapid sums, and the DfE have got their figures wrong on school holidays (amazingly, a bunch of innumerate idiots can’t add up).
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
Quick check indicates that at least some of the schools who experimented with the idea in the early 2000s reverted back to the traditional year structure.
Part of the problem then, as I recall, was that it put them out of step with everyone else which was very unpopular with parents trying to book holidays,
In the US, Trump has said he'll campaign against Lisa Murkowski.
Interesting question time.
They now have ranked choice voting. Now, every Democrat will put Murkowski second. But presumably there will be (at least) one Trump backed Republican. Could we end up with:
Democrat 35% Republican (Trump) 35% Murkowski 30%
In which case, which way will Murkowski's supporters go?
Alternatively, will we have about seven candidates, in which case I would have thought Murkowski would be an absolutely shoo in for the second round, and for the seat.
Plenty of Democrats will give Murkowski their #1 preference, in particular Alaska Natives (indigenous) who are strong for her like they were for her daddy.
Agree with DixieDean that Lisa M. should benefit from transfers MORE than a Democrat OR a Putinist challenger.
I would think it better suited to a Southern Californian climate. Rattan suffers a bit in the damp of England, and those cushions and rug would be a pain.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
Not happening. Nothing that threatens to depress prices will. Negative equity: with the possible exception of freezing the state pension, the worst sin a British Government can commit.
Consider: a third of the electorate (when adjusted for relative likelihood of different age groups to turn out) are pensioners; fully half are over 55. Most of these people will be either owner-occupiers (so very interested in ever-inflating prices, which enrich them,) or in social rather than private rented housing, which means that (a) they'll be too old to enter the first time buyer market, and (b) they'll be renting secure properties at preferential rates, as distinct from buy to lets where they can be milked for every penny and thrown out with a month's notice, so they don't have a dog in this fight.
Government will continue to pump house prices because it enriches their clients, the same as you'd expect a Labour Government (if we ever get another one) to jack up public sector pay and employment and make social security more generous. Falling house price profits = enraged olds and enraged heirs too.
Besides which, the current way in which the housing market works means that it suits builders to constrict supply in order to maximise profits, and development of any kind (though especially on a large scale) is usually fought tooth and nail by nimbies, amongst whom the Tory core vote are also typically over-represented.
The likelihood of action to radically improve the supply of housing available for purchase is close to zero for another couple of decades at least.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Perhaps you should support the Burning Pink Party, if you fancy eco-authoritarianism. Their manifesto includes abolishing the London Mayor and Assembly and replacing them with a system of decision making Soviets. They take a pretty hard line on the environment. This is their London Mayor candidate:
I don't want citizens assemblies. I don't trust the citizens.
I do get the non crazy theory behind assemblies as have been occasionally used, but it is no stretch, as others have noted, to see that not trusting the citizens is precisely why some people want citizen assemblies.
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
There, I would challenge whether "radical" environmentalism is necessary.
For me, the Greens have to drop their pseudo-socialism / desire for micro-control by Government - as it is not the guaranteed efficient way to run anything.
They don't have anything to entice people if they drop that stuff. They may not be shooting for mass appeal but they do want to be more than just a pressure group, and the other parties can and do catch up to them on green issues. So they have to have another reason for people to vote for them besides green issues.
In that case their future journey is to become gradually more irrelevant.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
I’ve just been doing some rapid sums, and the DfE have got their figures wrong on school holidays (amazingly, a bunch of innumerate idiots can’t add up).
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
Quick check indicates that at least some of the schools who experimented with the idea in the early 2000s reverted back to the traditional year structure.
Part of the problem then, as I recall, was that it put them out of step with everyone else which was very unpopular with parents trying to book holidays,
It suits a remarkable number of older people that all children are on holiday late July/August, when the weather is generally much less favourable in UK, leaving late April, May and June, the best time, quieter.
I’ve just been doing some rapid sums, and the DfE have got their figures wrong on school holidays (amazingly, a bunch of innumerate idiots can’t add up).
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
Quick check indicates that at least some of the schools who experimented with the idea in the early 2000s reverted back to the traditional year structure.
Part of the problem then, as I recall, was that it put them out of step with everyone else which was very unpopular with parents trying to book holidays,
Definitely didn't help. But there are a couple of other things- The key one is that everyone in schools is a dribbling fool by the end of a 7-8 week half-term, due to exhaustion. You could put them in the DfE and nobody could tell the difference. (If it were up to me, I'd move the start of the autumn term back a week and have two week-long breaks; one in early October and the other in mid-November). We really don't want every term to be like that.
The other populist one is that it would utter bork the family holiday business. It's bad enough when everyone with kids has a summer holiday in a six week window, but this scheme would cut that to four. And, whilst nobody wants to be the first to raise it, it's the populist thing that will kill this scheme.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
Except BTL is much, much more likely to be a cash purchase than a first time buyer.
Is there any way it won`t happen? You can lay 2024 as next GE year at 1.39 with BF which looks tempting to me.
Fraser Nelson writing in the Telegraph a few days ago suggested that the Tories were gearing up for an early election. However, having read the article , it emerged that by 'early' he meant May 2023 rather than May 2024 - though he appears to have missed the point that May 2023 might be a bit too early for the new boundaries. He clearly takes the view that - in terms of economic prospects - a later election will not favour the Tories. Now had Johnson managed a bare majority in 2019 - similar to that won by Cameron in 2015 - he could fairly easily justify another election at almost any time beyond the pandemic. Not so easy though when he already enjoys a majority of 80!
In this, the Scottish Tories have a very definite point. Swinney has been the enabler of the Salmondgate cover-up, treating Holyrood as a pathetic parish council to be manipulated, ignored and deceived with impunity. If they have any bollocks, or self respect, Scottish MPs must take revenge
Will they?
Depends entirely on what side the Greens take. Though even if Swinney is censured, it has no practical effect. Sturgeon will back him and he'll stay in place until the election, where he will be returned. The people will have had their say at the ballot box, which will effectively be taken as absolution, and he'll be back as Deputy First Minister. Job done.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
House prices fall, become more affordable and people who previously were unable to buy become homeowners.
I’ve just been doing some rapid sums, and the DfE have got their figures wrong on school holidays (amazingly, a bunch of innumerate idiots can’t add up).
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
Quick check indicates that at least some of the schools who experimented with the idea in the early 2000s reverted back to the traditional year structure.
Part of the problem then, as I recall, was that it put them out of step with everyone else which was very unpopular with parents trying to book holidays,
Definitely didn't help. But there are a couple of other things- The key one is that everyone in schools is a dribbling fool by the end of a 7-8 week half-term, due to exhaustion. You could put them in the DfE and nobody could tell the difference. (If it were up to me, I'd move the start of the autumn term back a week and have two week-long breaks; one in early October and the other in mid-November). We really don't want every term to be like that.
The other populist one is that it would utter bork the family holiday business. It's bad enough when everyone with kids has a summer holiday in a six week window, but this scheme would cut that to four. And, whilst nobody wants to be the first to raise it, it's the populist thing that will kill this scheme.
Two things:
1) I think with longer breaks in between, eight week terms are manageable. I’m no more tired in October than I usually am in February, but with only the one-week window in October I’m fading fast by the start of December,
2) No matter how exhausted I get, no matter how much of a dribbling idiot, I would still not be in any way remotely on the level of civil servants in the DFE. These are people who would have seen the first schedule of Berliner Brandenburg as a triumph. Heck, they don’t even know how many weeks there are in a month.
The Scottish Greens may back the Scottish Tories' VONC
Swinney could be in trouble
The Scottish Greens are the only real option for a pro-independence protest vote so they would benefit from disarray in the SNP.
It's an awkward choice for them. On the one hand, voting against the SNP is an opportunity to refute the sock puppet allegation. On the other, they have to vote for a Tory measure. Who knows which way they'll jump?
In this, the Scottish Tories have a very definite point. Swinney has been the enabler of the Salmondgate cover-up, treating Holyrood as a pathetic parish council to be manipulated, ignored and deceived with impunity. If they have any bollocks, or self respect, Scottish MPs must take revenge
Will they?
Depends entirely on what side the Greens take. Though even if Swinney is censured, it has no practical effect. Sturgeon will back him and he'll stay in place until the election, where he will be returned. The people will have had their say at the ballot box, which will effectively be taken as absolution, and he'll be back as Deputy First Minister. Job done.
I’ve just been doing some rapid sums, and the DfE have got their figures wrong on school holidays (amazingly, a bunch of innumerate idiots can’t add up).
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
Quick check indicates that at least some of the schools who experimented with the idea in the early 2000s reverted back to the traditional year structure.
Part of the problem then, as I recall, was that it put them out of step with everyone else which was very unpopular with parents trying to book holidays,
It suits a remarkable number of older people that all children are on holiday late July/August, when the weather is generally much less favourable in UK, leaving late April, May and June, the best time, quieter.
And of course, much cheaper.
My favourite month in Aber when I was a postgrad was always June. All the undergrads had left, so it was easy to get served in the pubs; the weather was good; the tourist attractions were all open, but not many people on them. Lots of days out on the golf course where I worked though with societies doing tours.
The only drawback was that was the only time I could afford to spend lots of time in London, so I missed quite a lot of it.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
House prices fall, become more affordable and people who previously were unable to buy become homeowners.
Except that most BTL purchases are made for cash.
So increasing interest rates makes it less affordable for first time buyers who need a mortgage, so landlords just get the property for cheaper and make more profit.
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
Except BTL is much, much more likely to be a cash purchase than a first time buyer.
Increasing interest rates aids BTL and hurts FTB.
Unsurprisingly that is skewed to the cheaper north:
Perhaps tax is the better way to go. Either way, if the Tories don't try to sort this out, they will eventually lose to someone who will, perhaps it a more destructive way.
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
There, I would challenge whether "radical" environmentalism is necessary.
For me, the Greens have to drop their pseudo-socialism / desire for micro-control by Government - as it is not the guaranteed efficient way to run anything.
I'm pretty environmentally minded.
I'm looking forward to a world where the vast bulk of electricity is generated from renewable sources, where cars are electric, and the water and air are clean.
But I'm not anti-progress, and I think the best way to get to this goal is via giving the free market gentle nudges through taxes and subsidies.
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
The voters who matter (i.e. old ones) won't - if the pie is a little bit smaller but they're getting an ever-greater share of it, then happy days.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
Except BTL is much, much more likely to be a cash purchase than a first time buyer.
Increasing interest rates aids BTL and hurts FTB.
Unsurprisingly that is skewed to the cheaper north:
Perhaps tax is the better way to go. Either way, if the Tories don't try to sort this out, they will eventually lose to someone who will, perhaps it a more destructive way.
Indeed that's what Osborne did. He put a 3% tax on BTL purchases which has halted the increasing share of property ending in the hands of landlords. That's a good solution.
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
The other thing to say on holidays of course is that whatever happens with schools it is very long overdue to have reform of the Parliamentary calendar so they are sitting a lot more - even if they do more committee work and fewer debates in the chamber.
Moreover, it is high time there was a minimum attendance requirement. Sinn Fein are a slightly special case but the likes of Jared O’Mara just took the piss.
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
Just before he was inaugurated President in 1861, Abraham Lincoln asked Congressman Thaddeus Stephens if a certain politico being considered for a cabinet position was corrupt. "Well," Stevens replied, "I don't think he'd try to steal a hot stove."
Lincoln was so amused by this, that he couldn't help repeating it, so it quickly got to ears of the politico in question, who naturally was quite offended, and complained to Lincoln. So the next time Abe met with Thad, he asked the Congressman if he would retract his remark?
"Ok," Stevens said, "come to think of it, I think that he probably WOULD steal a hot stove!"
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
Seems like bollocks to me.
From 2010-2019 the UK grew much faster than France or Germany or the Eurozone as a whole. It grew faster per capita too.
Of course the UK fell more from 2007 to 2010 but 2007 was peak bubble so not a smart place to measure from.
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
Tbf, the IMF forecasts on the UK economy have been fucking terrible for about a decade, coincidentally ever since Cameron and Osborne completely disregarded IMF policy advice on austerity and comprehensively proved them wrong about it.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
Except BTL is much, much more likely to be a cash purchase than a first time buyer.
Increasing interest rates aids BTL and hurts FTB.
Unsurprisingly that is skewed to the cheaper north:
Perhaps tax is the better way to go. Either way, if the Tories don't try to sort this out, they will eventually lose to someone who will, perhaps it a more destructive way.
Indeed that's what Osborne did. He put a 3% tax on BTL purchases which has halted the increasing share of property ending in the hands of landlords. That's a good solution.
I'd suggest the Tories should keep increasing the tax to actively get prices falling. I know that's not great for FTBs either, but it needs to happen.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
House prices fall, become more affordable and people who previously were unable to buy become homeowners.
Except that most BTL purchases are made for cash.
So increasing interest rates makes it less affordable for first time buyers who need a mortgage, so landlords just get the property for cheaper and make more profit.
I wouldn't do it with interest rates, it should be done with a specific landlord annual value surcharge.
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
The OBR might just be being conservative. We don't have the demographic challenges of Japan or the sclerotic nature of France, so I'd expect us to be ahead of them.
That said fiscal retrenchment and corporation tax rises like those envisaged aren't going to help: we're in danger of trying to make ourselves wealthier by standing in a bucket and pulling hard on the handles.
A Tory frontbencher called Harriet Harman a cow during the 1996 emergency statement on BSE.
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
Just before he was inaugurated President in 1861, Abraham Lincoln asked Congressman Thaddeus Stephens if a certain politico being considered for a cabinet position was corrupt. "Well," Stevens replied, "I don't think he'd try to steal a hot stove."
Lincoln was so amused by this, that he couldn't help repeating it, so it quickly got to ears of the politico in question, who naturally was quite offended, and complained to Lincoln. So the next time Abe met with Thad, he asked the Congressman if he would retract his remark?
"Ok," Stevens said, "come to think of it, I think that he probably WOULD steal a hot stove!"
Simon Cameron, Lincoln's first Secretary of War, correct?
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
House prices fall, become more affordable and people who previously were unable to buy become homeowners.
Except that most BTL purchases are made for cash.
So increasing interest rates makes it less affordable for first time buyers who need a mortgage, so landlords just get the property for cheaper and make more profit.
I wouldn't do it with interest rates, it should be done with a specific landlord annual value surcharge.
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
Tbf, the IMF forecasts on the UK economy have been fucking terrible for about a decade, coincidentally ever since Cameron and Osborne completely disregarded IMF policy advice on austerity and comprehensively proved them wrong about it.
But the focus of that tweet is not the IMF forecasts for Britain. He's using the official OBR forecasts for Britain, then using the IMF to compare these with other nations
The OBR thinks we are going to stagnate from 2023 onwards. That is what depresses me. Let's hope they are also wrong
The Scottish Greens may back the Scottish Tories' VONC
Swinney could be in trouble
The Scottish Greens are the only real option for a pro-independence protest vote so they would benefit from disarray in the SNP.
Good point. Also, the Greens love to hold the moral high ground, and gaze down at everyone else, and it's pretty clear where that is, here
If they DON'T support the VONC then they will look like SNP puppets. Could be costly
If the Greens were serious they'd be directing their ire at China, which burns more coal than the rest of the world put together and is responsible for 26% of global emissions.
But, they're much more interested in the trendy hippie anti-capitalist anti-western "alternative" lifestyle sort of thing.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
Except that you're missing two very important points.
Even if the price goes up to match the amount of tax that would have been due they're no worse off. If the price goes up by less than the tax that would have been due they're still better off.
Tax and house prices are not the same thing. Tax needs paying up front 100% and doesn't count towards your mortgage equity. If the price goes up then the amount you would have put up front in tax can be contributed towards your equity in your deposit.
In neither scenario are you worse off by not having to pay the tax. The idea you're better off with lower house prices but tax on top is entirely myopic.
As you profess to be a libertarian I find your fondness for government intervention in free market price discovery a bit surprising.
House prices are simply a function of the affordability as defined by the monthly payment, that has been reduced by a deliberate and calculated reduction in interest rates in order to reduce the cost of borrowing.
The government consistently uses whatever trick it has to push house prices up, be that help to buy or the stamp duty holiday. While reducing the monthly payment via reducing interest rates.
This helps maintain high prices that benefits existing homeowners while new homeowners ultimately pay more over a greater number of years.
It is a racket at best, a ponzi scheme at worst. And it will end in tears sooner or later.
The Scottish Greens may back the Scottish Tories' VONC
Swinney could be in trouble
The Scottish Greens are the only real option for a pro-independence protest vote so they would benefit from disarray in the SNP.
Good point. Also, the Greens love to hold the moral high ground, and gaze down at everyone else, and it's pretty clear where that is, here
If they DON'T support the VONC then they will look like SNP puppets. Could be costly
If the Greens were serious they'd be directing their ire at China, which burns more coal than the rest of the world put together and is responsible for 26% of global emissions.
But, they're much more interested in the trendy hippie anti-capitalist anti-western "alternative" lifestyle sort of thing.
I'm not sure what you think the Green Party can do about China's carbon emissions...
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
Except BTL is much, much more likely to be a cash purchase than a first time buyer.
Increasing interest rates aids BTL and hurts FTB.
Unsurprisingly that is skewed to the cheaper north:
Perhaps tax is the better way to go. Either way, if the Tories don't try to sort this out, they will eventually lose to someone who will, perhaps it a more destructive way.
Indeed that's what Osborne did. He put a 3% tax on BTL purchases which has halted the increasing share of property ending in the hands of landlords. That's a good solution.
I'd suggest the Tories should keep increasing the tax to actively get prices falling. I know that's not great for FTBs either, but it needs to happen.
How does that work? The tax is a one-off so existing landlords don't get taxed at all they just keep making a profit. Getting house prices to fall but charging FTBs more up front in tax leaves them worse off not better off.
An annual landlord surcharge on Council Tax or something like that would be a better solution.
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
Tbf, the IMF forecasts on the UK economy have been fucking terrible for about a decade, coincidentally ever since Cameron and Osborne completely disregarded IMF policy advice on austerity and comprehensively proved them wrong about it.
But the focus of that tweet is not the IMF forecasts for Britain. He's using the official OBR forecasts for Britain, then using the IMF to compare these with other nations
The OBR thinks we are going to stagnate from 2023 onwards. That is what depresses me. Let's hope they are also wrong
That's an inevitability of the 25% corporation tax rate and eliminating the investment deduction. It is seriously, seriously awful policy. If it isn't reversed then we're in serious trouble. However, the population growth stats in the EFO are a bit off, they have assumed no reduction in population for 2020 and 2021 which is mad.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
Except that you're missing two very important points.
Even if the price goes up to match the amount of tax that would have been due they're no worse off. If the price goes up by less than the tax that would have been due they're still better off.
Tax and house prices are not the same thing. Tax needs paying up front 100% and doesn't count towards your mortgage equity. If the price goes up then the amount you would have put up front in tax can be contributed towards your equity in your deposit.
In neither scenario are you worse off by not having to pay the tax. The idea you're better off with lower house prices but tax on top is entirely myopic.
As you profess to be a libertarian I find your fondness for government intervention in free market price discovery a bit surprising.
House prices are simply a function of the affordability as defined by the monthly payment, that has been reduced by a deliberate and calculated reduction in interest rates in order to reduce the cost of borrowing.
The government consistently uses whatever trick it has to push house prices up, be that help to buy or the stamp duty holiday. While reducing the monthly payment via reducing interest rates.
This helps maintain high prices that benefits existing homeowners while new homeowners ultimately pay more over a greater number of years.
It is a racket at best, a ponzi scheme at worst. And it will end in tears sooner or later.
How is not taxing buyers as much an intervention in free market price discovery? Taxes are interfering.
It is not true to say that house prices have gone up due to low interest rates. The price rises occurred before interest rates fell to this level.
Your infographic is interesting but absolutely misleading. The rise in prices occurred in the 2000s when the interest rate was much higher than it is now. The fall in interest rates came afterwards but house prices have relatively stabilised.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
Except that you're missing two very important points.
Even if the price goes up to match the amount of tax that would have been due they're no worse off. If the price goes up by less than the tax that would have been due they're still better off.
Tax and house prices are not the same thing. Tax needs paying up front 100% and doesn't count towards your mortgage equity. If the price goes up then the amount you would have put up front in tax can be contributed towards your equity in your deposit.
In neither scenario are you worse off by not having to pay the tax. The idea you're better off with lower house prices but tax on top is entirely myopic.
As you profess to be a libertarian I find your fondness for government intervention in free market price discovery a bit surprising.
House prices are simply a function of the affordability as defined by the monthly payment, that has been reduced by a deliberate and calculated reduction in interest rates in order to reduce the cost of borrowing.
The government consistently uses whatever trick it has to push house prices up, be that help to buy or the stamp duty holiday. While reducing the monthly payment via reducing interest rates.
This helps maintain high prices that benefits existing homeowners while new homeowners ultimately pay more over a greater number of years.
It is a racket at best, a ponzi scheme at worst. And it will end in tears sooner or later.
That is quite depressing. It could also be the end of the Tories, for now. If we grow four times slower than Germany, half the speed of France, voters WILL notice. The contrast will be painful
Tbf, the IMF forecasts on the UK economy have been fucking terrible for about a decade, coincidentally ever since Cameron and Osborne completely disregarded IMF policy advice on austerity and comprehensively proved them wrong about it.
But the focus of that tweet is not the IMF forecasts for Britain. He's using the official OBR forecasts for Britain, then using the IMF to compare these with other nations
The OBR thinks we are going to stagnate from 2023 onwards. That is what depresses me. Let's hope they are also wrong
That's an inevitability of the 25% corporation tax rate and eliminating the investment deduction. It is seriously, seriously awful policy. If it isn't reversed then we're in serious trouble. However, the population growth stats in the EFO are a bit off, they have assumed no reduction in population for 2020 and 2021 which is mad.
On the other hand, nothing in life is inevitable, and the things that really move the needle are the things that a forecast isn't able to capture.
One can only imagine that it's grown even stronger since. It stands to reason, and just looking at a map confirms it. Labour's remaining constituencies, especially in England, are almost all small urban ones. About the largest left, in terms of geographic extent, are probably Lancaster & Fleetwood, and Canterbury.
Comments
If the Government were serious about making housing more affordable to more people then it would be doing something radical to stimulate supply. It isn't. QED.
Have you considered a Pod?
If we assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption, if only because it includes three bank holidays - that the Christmas/New Year break is sacrosanct, it is totally impossible to have two eight week terms plus a two week half term in October without starting the school year midway through August.
Which again, is not necessarily a stupid idea, although it would further complicate teacher contracts which currently run 1st Sept-31st Aug. But the proposals as they have been described don’t match this funny thing called the calendar.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9335853/Labour-council-chief-suspended-secret-recording-calling-female-politician-cow.html
Betty Boothroyd was unamused both with the language and with his less than apologetic statement, ‘I called the honourable member a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it.’
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
- Even if the price goes up to match the amount of tax that would have been due they're no worse off. If the price goes up by less than the tax that would have been due they're still better off.
- Tax and house prices are not the same thing. Tax needs paying up front 100% and doesn't count towards your mortgage equity. If the price goes up then the amount you would have put up front in tax can be contributed towards your equity in your deposit.
In neither scenario are you worse off by not having to pay the tax. The idea you're better off with lower house prices but tax on top is entirely myopic.As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
Will they?
What IS interesting, is that they are using the same basic line as we deployed by their chinless wonder predecessors in the Palace a generation ago versus Princess Diana. AND with a very similar degree of obvious ineptitude.
Meaning they are HELPING rather than hurting Meghan, methinks.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
I look forward to him applying them to that other party leader who does it as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/598398.stm
Quick check indicates that at least some of the schools who experimented with the idea in the early 2000s reverted back to the traditional year structure.
But the notion you're better off if you pay more tax and less in house prices - that's just innumerate. You can't compare house price alone, you need to compare the full amount spent as well as how and when its spent.
Agree with DixieDean that Lisa M. should benefit from transfers MORE than a Democrat OR a Putinist challenger.
https://twitter.com/lindquist_lord/status/1368474086012313600?s=20
Consider: a third of the electorate (when adjusted for relative likelihood of different age groups to turn out) are pensioners; fully half are over 55. Most of these people will be either owner-occupiers (so very interested in ever-inflating prices, which enrich them,) or in social rather than private rented housing, which means that (a) they'll be too old to enter the first time buyer market, and (b) they'll be renting secure properties at preferential rates, as distinct from buy to lets where they can be milked for every penny and thrown out with a month's notice, so they don't have a dog in this fight.
Government will continue to pump house prices because it enriches their clients, the same as you'd expect a Labour Government (if we ever get another one) to jack up public sector pay and employment and make social security more generous. Falling house price profits = enraged olds and enraged heirs too.
Besides which, the current way in which the housing market works means that it suits builders to constrict supply in order to maximise profits, and development of any kind (though especially on a large scale) is usually fought tooth and nail by nimbies, amongst whom the Tory core vote are also typically over-represented.
The likelihood of action to radically improve the supply of housing available for purchase is close to zero for another couple of decades at least.
The Scottish Greens may back the Scottish Tories' VONC
Swinney could be in trouble
https://twitter.com/scotnews_edits/status/1368637227803279362?s=20
If Salmond had not decided to make a comeback to replace him, you wonder how different things would have been.
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
The key one is that everyone in schools is a dribbling fool by the end of a 7-8 week half-term, due to exhaustion. You could put them in the DfE and nobody could tell the difference. (If it were up to me, I'd move the start of the autumn term back a week and have two week-long breaks; one in early October and the other in mid-November). We really don't want every term to be like that.
The other populist one is that it would utter bork the family holiday business. It's bad enough when everyone with kids has a summer holiday in a six week window, but this scheme would cut that to four. And, whilst nobody wants to be the first to raise it, it's the populist thing that will kill this scheme.
Increasing interest rates aids BTL and hurts FTB.
I'm going to get GPT3 to mock up a photo of Ian Wright with that actual hair. I'll let you know how it goes
If they DON'T support the VONC then they will look like SNP puppets. Could be costly
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-tests-per-thousand-people-smoothed-7-day?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..latest®ion=World
UK currently on 9/1000 tests per day
Next week it will be north of 30/1000
1) I think with longer breaks in between, eight week terms are manageable. I’m no more tired in October than I usually am in February, but with only the one-week window in October I’m fading fast by the start of December,
2) No matter how exhausted I get, no matter how much of a dribbling idiot, I would still not be in any way remotely on the level of civil servants in the DFE. These are people who would have seen the first schedule of Berliner Brandenburg as a triumph. Heck, they don’t even know how many weeks there are in a month.
My favourite month in Aber when I was a postgrad was always June. All the undergrads had left, so it was easy to get served in the pubs; the weather was good; the tourist attractions were all open, but not many people on them. Lots of days out on the golf course where I worked though with societies doing tours.
The only drawback was that was the only time I could afford to spend lots of time in London, so I missed quite a lot of it.
So increasing interest rates makes it less affordable for first time buyers who need a mortgage, so landlords just get the property for cheaper and make more profit.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-4220584/Cash-buyers-make-record-60-buy-let-purchases.html
Perhaps tax is the better way to go. Either way, if the Tories don't try to sort this out, they will eventually lose to someone who will, perhaps it a more destructive way.
He's very helpful.
Moreover, it is high time there was a minimum attendance requirement. Sinn Fein are a slightly special case but the likes of Jared O’Mara just took the piss.
Lincoln was so amused by this, that he couldn't help repeating it, so it quickly got to ears of the politico in question, who naturally was quite offended, and complained to Lincoln. So the next time Abe met with Thad, he asked the Congressman if he would retract his remark?
"Ok," Stevens said, "come to think of it, I think that he probably WOULD steal a hot stove!"
From 2010-2019 the UK grew much faster than France or Germany or the Eurozone as a whole. It grew faster per capita too.
Of course the UK fell more from 2007 to 2010 but 2007 was peak bubble so not a smart place to measure from.
That said fiscal retrenchment and corporation tax rises like those envisaged aren't going to help: we're in danger of trying to make ourselves wealthier by standing in a bucket and pulling hard on the handles.
The OBR thinks we are going to stagnate from 2023 onwards. That is what depresses me. Let's hope they are also wrong
But, they're much more interested in the trendy hippie anti-capitalist anti-western "alternative" lifestyle sort of thing.
https://twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1368637984879296512
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristoffer_Ventura
And he's just made an ace...
House prices are simply a function of the affordability as defined by the monthly payment, that has been reduced by a deliberate and calculated reduction in interest rates in order to reduce the cost of borrowing.
The government consistently uses whatever trick it has to push house prices up, be that help to buy or the stamp duty holiday. While reducing the monthly payment via reducing interest rates.
This helps maintain high prices that benefits existing homeowners while new homeowners ultimately pay more over a greater number of years.
It is a racket at best, a ponzi scheme at worst. And it will end in tears sooner or later.
https://twitter.com/hairychesters/status/1366019156185911297
An annual landlord surcharge on Council Tax or something like that would be a better solution.
It is not true to say that house prices have gone up due to low interest rates. The price rises occurred before interest rates fell to this level.
Your infographic is interesting but absolutely misleading. The rise in prices occurred in the 2000s when the interest rate was much higher than it is now. The fall in interest rates came afterwards but house prices have relatively stabilised.
Has been the case for the last 25 years, anyway.
Eventually you end up pauperising your children and selling all your assets to foreigners.
https://citymonitor.ai/politics/can-population-density-predict-voting-preference-1395
One can only imagine that it's grown even stronger since. It stands to reason, and just looking at a map confirms it. Labour's remaining constituencies, especially in England, are almost all small urban ones. About the largest left, in terms of geographic extent, are probably Lancaster & Fleetwood, and Canterbury.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths