There will be a certain amount of ‘shy tory’ and ‘shy reform’ going on in the polls.
Well the pollsters know this, of course, being professional election analysts and all.
Sorry Ernie, I wasn't clear. You're not voting, you're just endlessly discussing how the rest of us should vote, and dressing that up as a personal choice over a vote you won't be placing.
Sitting back and watching the polling isn't enough, everyone needs to get out and vote who can... and vote to remove the Tories. We can expect that a lot has been learned from the last few elections (and the referendum) and there will be a huge last minute spend/spread of targeted misinformation via social media to both push a last minute swing back to the Tories, and to encourage those that would vote against them not to bother.
TBH a good start would simply be to crack down on the landlords who evade paying tax on their rental income. The main aim though should be to force them to sell up and return their properties to the market for others to buy and live in. An escalating CGT on second homes would be very effective in encouring them to sell up and would raise lots of cash.
Replacing business rates with a property value tax (based on current, not notional value in 1991) and extending this to residential property that is privately let?
There's a shortage of properties available to rent as it is.
How does rent controls, higher taxes on landlords and forcing them to sell up help that situation?
I
In the long run we need reform of Right to Buy - social housing is a public utility and shouldn't be sold off below market rates to essentially buy Tory votes, together with resourcing councils to build. But that's not a quick fix.
How does rent controls, higher taxes on landlords and forcing them to sell up help that situation?
A lot of people renting do so because they can't afford to buy. We obviously need a huge amount of house building too which labour have already committed to. Second homes and rental 'investment' properties are a huge problem that needs to be eliminated, which also has the benefit of potentially generating lots of tax income. It would essentially be a form of windfall tax on the private property market.
The main aim though should be to force them to sell up and return their properties to the market for others to buy and live in.
But who is going to buy them? whilst there are people renting who would like to buy and a flood of properties would perhaps help reduce prices a reduction is capacity in the rental market won't help those who financially can't get or don't want a mortgage.
An escalating CGT on second homes would be very effective in encouring them to sell up and would raise lots of cash.
If you want to encourage sales you would need to announce the CGT change in advance to motivate the move. If it works to achieve that objective it won't raise cash. It could actually have the opposite effect - it may become better plan to hold on to the asset rather than liquidate it and pay tax!
Replacing business rates with a property value tax (based on current, not notional value in 1991) and extending this to residential property that is privately let?
Business rates is essentially a property value tax. But if you change the cost of rental properties the most likely result is rents go up to cover that cost.
If you want to encourage sales you would need to announce the CGT change in advance to motivate the move.
Exactly what I'm talking about. Bring in a second property CGT escalator where rates increase year on year, encouraging second home owners and landlords to cash in early rather than hang on. You could even waive the CGT if the property is sold at favourable rates to the renter.
For the rental sector the solution is a massive social housing building programme whilst making it much more expensive/difficult to be a private landlord resulting in far more rental stock being in the public sector rather than private market.
Just building, and retaining, more social housing is all that's really needed. Stop right to buy. Build more social housing.
[ also rename social housing... the public rented sector needs to be widened to cover more people... stop leaving so much to private landlords ]
Does social housing need a name? Can a council not just buy/build and then rent houses like any other landlord? It would remove the stigma. You'd just be renting them off the agency like anyone else, but the council could (hopefully) be driving rents down.
@kelvin @molgrips The thing is that councils can also drive medium density building e.g. maisonettes/3 or 4 bedroom flats in 4 storey blocks near transport hubs - if we want to have greener cities we need the 'missing middle' between suburban sprawl and small flats in skyscrapers.
HMOs are another horror show that needs gripping.
– if we want to have greener cities we need the ‘missing middle’ between suburban sprawl and small flats in skyscrapers.
how do you charge EVs in flats?
Not everyone needs an EV. More importantly, modern purpose built blocks of flats often give over the ground floor and/or basement to residents' parking... this is ideal for EVs. New publicly built and owned buildings of any type can be designed to accommodate EV charging... it's retrofitting the requirement to existing older buildings, be that terraced homes with street parking, or blocks of maisonettes, that's the big challenge.
Does social housing need a name?
When I were a lad they were "council houses". No stigma attached where I grew up, most families were in a council house or a rented NCB house.
Stop right to buy.
I've no problem with Right To Buy, but make it the actual valuation rather than a taxpayer subsidy to the buyer - as it was before Mrs T.
@intheborders Also something about the money raised going back to HM Treasury rather than the council?
^ is correct. Council builds house. Tenant buys house. Money goes to central government. There is currently little incentive for local authorities to build social housing, let alone good quality social housing that is nice to live in.
Not just social housing (of which there should be a lot more), but also enforcing the planning rules on affordable housing. It's an absolute piss take that developers get away with reducing down the provision in their schemes. You also see them weaselling out of other commitments. There's a massive housing scheme where i live that was supposed to include a new infant & primary school, they got out of it and now the existing school can't cope. Because the council has been paired backs so much it doesn't have the money or resource to fight it so the developer skipped away and built all the houses.
One of the reasons I'm drawn to Angela Rayner is when she was interviewed on the rest is politics, Alistair Campbell asked her if there was one thing that you could be remembered for as a Govt minister what would it be?
Without hesitation she said
"Council Houses. I'm going to build the next wave of social and council houses. Nice Ones. Green Ones. Ones you want to live in."
We're not just electing a prime minister, there's a cabinet in waiting who have their own agendas and want to deliver.
It’s the snobbery around being a home owner that has to change
I don’t think wanting to buy a house has anything remotely to do with snobbery. The key driver for most will be the fact that it makes far more financial sense to buy a place and after you’ve paid the mortgage you have an asset, as opposed to paying the mortgage on someone else’s asset and at the end being left with SFA.
Also, with our current laws... it feels far more secure than private renting for most people, especially if you have or plan to have kids. Council housing, or whatever public sector renting is called and whatever form it takes, should mean secure tenancy beyond what even a highly regulated private sector can offer (and we don't have that).
It’s the snobbery around being a home owner that has to change
Definitely not snobbery. You either pay into your own asset, or you pay into someone else's asset. Which would you rather?
EDIT the exception is social housing - which is why I'm in favour of it. I'd ban private landlords if I were a dictator and I'd had a few drinks.
Waiting for survation?
they are trailing this evenings poll with a gif of an extinction level meteor......
https://twitter.com/DamianSurvation/status/1798713442628669566
how do you charge EVs in flats?
The simpler solution is you don't.
You build housing and cities that don't require you to
a) buy/lease an extra ~30sqm that could have been part of your housing.
b) buy/lease a car
Parking is a huge part of the reason developments end up so sprawling. Which in itself makes car ownership self fulfilling because that sprawl drives up commuting distances.
There is currently little incentive for local authorities to build social housing, let alone good quality social housing that is nice to live in.
The incentive is that councils do still have a requirement to provide social housing to those in need, and waiting lists are huge, a lot of social housing of course was sold off under right to buy (covered extensively elsewhere). This all pushes the poorest in society into the arms of the private rental sector which is for the most part unaffordable.
The obvious things to do is build more social housing, and/or buy back some of that existing housing stock to be used as social housing at the same time as ending right to buy (or at least putting some big old caveats on it).
Social housing with affordable, controlled rents that can't be moved into private ownership has several benefits, mainly that it would (hopefully) mean the occupants retain more of their incomes to either save (for future house deposits?) or spend, putting money back into the economy. It would end the stranglehold private rented accommodation now has over the sector helping to adjust down the exorbitant "market rates" for rents and (ideal IMO) persuading landlords that it's time to cash out of the land-lording game.
Of course that's not likely to be politically popular with a number of people, and would need huge investment from central Government. Domestic property as investment has been one of the the biggest bubbles in our economy over the last 40 years, mainly due to the injection of supply from Right to Buy created, but that bubble has to pop eventually. It's run it's course IMO, those lucky enough to pick up a spare house or two during the 80s/90s have more than likely cleared the mortgage (at least once over) and are probably just holding out for maximum ROI on an asset that someone else paid the mortgage, on as they approach/enter retirement they need to divest..
Fundamentally it's a huge part of the intergenerational wealth gap, older generations essentially exploiting younger generations need for housing in order to accumulate more wealth, and in doing so preventing their tenants from being able to save up and live the same dream of property ownership, or even having a bit of financial security.
Rob Parsons Northern Agenda is worth subscribing to for what’s going on politically in the North. Here’s his latest on Richard Holden and the other ‘bloody loyal to north’ Tory MPs pleading to be parachuted into safe(r) seats in the south, knowing they’re done up here
With his and other ‘chicken run’ MPs deserting Rishi’s sinking ship, 7 out of 20 north east constituencies (covered by the North East mayoral authority) still have no Tory candidate. The deadline is tomorrow.
https://Twitter.com/robparsonsnorth/status/1798685782648967354?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
https://Twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1798637480608198934?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
https://Twitter.com/robparsonsnorth/status/1798321716722376734?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
Looks like Rishi decided to fly home for more campaigning after the first d day commemoration this morning. Surely most of the people who will be watching the ceremonies are his target demographic, the rest of us are working.
Starmer stayed and it looks like Nige is putting the boot in as he is there.
Definitely not snobbery.
Aye, there's nowt wrong with wanting to own the property you live in for all the obvious reasons. Owning two or more properties though is a completely different ball game and should be massively discouraged again for very obvious reasons. And obviously home ownership doesn't suit everyone so that's where we need affordable and secure rental housing where you won't get ripped off or be put out on the street at the whim of a landlord.
“If social/council housing remains in public ownership we are all left with an asset”
The horse has bolted, very few Councils have a large amount of Council Houses now. Many were sold off by right to buy, and a vast amount were sold, or passed to, Housing Associations.
My old Council area gave away around 8000 houses for £1 - they were that much of a liability that giving them away saved money. The Councils cannot borrow money to upgrade the houses, the HA’s can, so they borrow against the value of the house to get enough money in for upgrades/refurbs.
Being in the Social Housing market is definitely not a way to make money. Most break even or have a small surplus each year. The Council sold them as they expected a £23million shortfall over the next 5 years. With figures like that, I’m not sure why anyone would take them on.
As for increasing low level (entry level) housing, ensure that each development has at least 15-20% of starter homes, and also insist that they are not at the arse end of the development, which is what happens now. House builders get away with so much, its time they were cracked down on, and made to do the correct thing for society, not keep on building 5 bed detached houses.
A few years ago there was a tax on new housing developments, whereby something like 10% were to be starter homes. If you didnt do that, you had to pay a tax based on how big the houses were. I was working on a site with 3 houses, the Owner told me he was paying the Council £30k, as he woudlnt build a 2 bed house on the Land, he was building 3 large houses, which when sold, easily made more profit than selling six 2 bed houses, so paying the £30k tax was a business decision, which he knew he’d gain from.
binners Any idea what the national shortfall is?
@ratherbeintobago - A couple of days ago I think I read it was 150. Seeing as nobody wants to stand anywhere north of Watford there must be a serious possibility that the Tories will be going into the election without representation at all in a lot of Northern Constituencies. That’s going to be a bit embarrassing for the little fella
Its worth noting that this happened in the Greater Manchester mayoral elections. The Tory candidate threw in the towel and defected to Reform a few weeks before saying he was wasting his time and had received absolutely zero support from Tory Central Office. I’m sure that was duly noted by many potential candidates/sacrificial lambs
Plenty of places in Cornwall that would benefit from 2nd home ownership becoming too expensive - places are empty for months at time, be much better if they were returned to local markets to rebuild the communities that are only busy for 3 months of the year.
Apparently the tories were not lying about the £2k thing, as they think that Labour will put taxes up anyway
I know this is off topic now but for those who want to invest in property why not allow them to invest in a housing corp set up by the council. You don't need to buy to let, you can put money into the council and buy a house or even part of one, and get the rent. Then you can cash out if you want. Of course, with proper controls over housing the prices should be flat so you probably wouldn't want to invest in property anyway.... You could invest in something that does good instead.
can't believe Sunak didn't make more of D-Day, letting frog face call you unpatriotic 😕
another post farage intervention poll has Tories in wipeout territory likely 3rd behind the Lib Dems
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1798739124935102793
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with owning or wanting to own your own home, but that there has been a tendency amongst some people to look down on those who live in rented accomodation particularly council houses.
In my lifetime I have lived in council housing, other social housing, tied housing, private rented and owner occupied.
I just want the LibDems to get one more seat than the Tories. Just out of curiosity, to see how the media then cover the official opposition and the third party.
likely 3rd behind the Lib Dems
This can still happen, if everyone uses their votes for maximum effect. Probably the first and last chance in any of our lifetimes to kick the Conservatives off the front benches.
I did not think Farage would have such a dramatic effect on the polls.
For the next election it's clear what Tories have to do. They can leave the right wingers to Farage and move to the centre. This could be good news for us because we'd end up with two centre parties and hopefully the right wingers can be left to shout in their own corner and stop ****ing everything up.
Survation is much kinder to the tories, they only lose 290 odd MPs
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1798751741057409248?t=Nq_Dsqysq7JRphsAIC3Bxg&s=19
I did not think Farage would have such a dramatic effect on the polls.
He’s been leading the Tory party around by the nose for a decade now. Cameron was terrified of him, so we got the referendum, Boris used him as an outrider to make himself PM, Rishi is back to being terrified of ‘those who won’t take yes for an answer’ as Dave referred to them.
They've made their bed. Their spinelessness and opportunism in the face of Farage/UKIP/Reform has delivered them to exactly where they deserve to be. So ****’em!
They can leave the right wingers to Farage and move to the centre.
They don't know how to anymore. Both the Tories and labour are now obsessed with moving right no matter what the situation, it is just baked in dogma for both parties to do so.
It's not just the UK though, it is happening across the world, the only reason I can see for it is behind the scenes money. Which is why while I support a change to PR, I still think political funding and lobbying are more important issues to tackle.
