Bing I think it's clear our views will differ on the emotive subject such as politics, I won't even try to pretend to have as broader view on the political system and parties involved as what you have, that's a very thought provoking post
We just view things always through the prism of our own eyes.
Of my three best mates one is a Labour supporter, who is voting UKIP this time because he hates Miliband. One was a Tory and now supports the Greens. The other is a swing voter.
We have argued the toss over politics for years. We are still mates. :-)
Somewhere one day I genuinely believe that there can be a party that will represent a larger % of the population than anyone in the past lets hope we are still about to benefit from it, I don't think that there is a great deal of work required for people to come together and try and fix it, great opinion on the Clegg fella and really something I hadn't considered
Well if the figures don't work for you cafcfan i guess we should cancel the election and carry on as we are.
Excellent. A sensible policy at last! How do I vote for you?
Well, here's my summary of the Labour Manifesto.
First, as you'd expect there seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. For example bringing back the 10p tax band and a pledge not to increase tax rates (which is odd as they are doing that by bringing back the 50p upper rate, still never mind). BUT as they will have to tamper with the personal allowances in order to introduce the 10p rate it is a slight surprise that there is no mention at all on where they intended the important 40p tax rate (or any of the other bands) to start. Or to have a commitment to keep the newly raised personal allowance of £10,600. I suspect it's a deliberate omission because they don't want to frighten us.
I think the 40p band (again the manifesto is not specific), is their cut-off point for taking away pensioners' winter fuel allowances. So, in terms of my personal finances, I'm none the wiser and won't be until such time as Balls get up on his hind legs and introduces his first budget.
On the plus side there's the footie bit (maybe), staying in the EU, no more badger culls and the continuing ban on hunting with dogs.
On the negative side (for me I appreciate others might disagree) there's a huge amount of control-freakery. More commissioners for this and that, new power regulator, regulating prices, blah, blah blah.
This is the bit that I'm not expecting will get much attention at all from the media but I think is potentially the most important and worst bit in the whole document:
"Institutional investors will have a duty to act in the best interests of ordinary savers. (Natch -they probably wouldn't last long if they didn't.) They will have to (my emphasis) prioritise long-term growth over short-term profits for the companies in which they are investing. We will change takeover rules to enhance the role of long-term investors by restricting voting to those already holding shares when a bid is made. In addition, we will strengthen the public interest test."
I think it is the path to madness. First because short-term profits may (but only may) actually be in the best interests of ordinary (I apologise for re-using that word - I hate it) savers. Second It also takes no account of the fact that a significant number of funds operate outside the UK jurisdiction anyway.
Potentially if this meddling in the decision-making process (however well-intentioned) leads to less efficient UK-based funds unable to take prompt action when merited, they will be obliged - by having a duty to act in the best interests of ordinary savers (sorry again) - to take their business somewhere more sensible. Investors would demand this of them anyway if they started to see the Luxembourg version of a fund inching away from the performance levels of its British equivalent. This little paragraph could spell the death knell for a large part of the UK financial services sector with large numbers of firms and jobs decamping elsewhere. I suppose we will see in due course but add it to the promised further and continuing persecution of bankers and the 50p tax band, mansion tax, etc, etc and London could soon seem a much, much less attractive place to do business.
We may well have the promised fairer society: with everybody, without exception being much poor. But on the bright side and at a stroke the empty mansions could all be converted to studio flats thereby meeting the target for numbers of extra homes.
This bit from "education" struck me as odd too: "...ensure all young people study English and Maths to age 18". Unless you want to do it as a specialism, surely anyone with half a brain doesn't still need to be studying our native language past the age of 16? I'd have thought diversification on to something else would be more productive, like German? Or will they be doing special courses for prospective BBC journalists and aspiring politicians explaining why the word data is plural or "going forward" is a solecism? In any event, if people at 16 are too young to give up learning English, how come they are old enough to vote? (Another manifesto commitment.)
The document itself is 86 pp. 14 of those are taken up with photographs of random appealing normal people who have typical jobs - I quite liked the one on page 82. (There's also a picture of their middle-of-the road, hard-working leader, Ed.) There's one very small paragraph on the not unimportant topic of Northern Ireland. Which seems to have been marginalised in Labour's thinking. A few bland words about Ulster vs 14 glossy pictures of modest, homely people doesn't seem like a very encouraging ratio to me.
Then there's Ed's foreword. A single pp, around three hundred words. Eight of those words are "people" and nine of them are "country". That's about 6% of the total. By contrast, "economy" is a word used just once.
There's also one "Britain". Britain, of course, is just England and Wales. So has Labour's homespun leader given up on Scotland already, forgotten to include the "Great" and/or just really wants to piss off the Unionists in Northern Ireland? (I don't really think they could have just forgotten the "Great" because that's another word that's used to excess in Ed's foreword , accounting for nearly 2% of the total. So, another one would not have hurt, surely?
I think "Britain" includes Scotland but not Northern Ireland, but lots of the Northerm Irish people are British. Confusing.
Thanks for your summary although as you readily say, it is filtered through your lens, but nevertheless it is a good read, and has a sense of authority. I am also looking forward to this 'manifesto' week, and further analysis, and I wonder if the UKIP version will be the 'Lepoint' of manifestos.
Somewhere one day I genuinely believe that there can be a party that will represent a larger % of the population than anyone in the past lets hope we are still about to benefit from it
It will never happen. Parties can implement policies but they can never deliver happiness to people. People will always feel their lives, institutions and laws can be improved. If one party is in power, the other party will simply adopt and promote a policy of change, proclaiming potential betterment.
Whoever is not in power will always be pledging to save the country / economy/ NHS/ armed forces etc and putting 'hardworking families' first.
The Tories are announcing the extension of the right to buy policy to those living in housing association property. The costs of implimenting it are are unfunded naturally but it's like we've learned nothing from the past. We need more social housing not less.
The Tories are announcing the extension of the right to buy policy to those living in housing association property. The costs of implimenting it are are unfunded naturally but it's like we've learned nothing from the past. We need more social housing not less.
The policy first put forward by Labour in 1959! Then were against the scheme in 1983, then for it in 1985.
The best approach was in 1997 when sales were restricted in areas of shortage. Very sensible and improved by the 5 year ownership modification in 2005. Improved again in 2012 with proposals that for every home sold, another would be built for affordable rent.
Abolished in Scotland, but this may be because the Scottish parliament want more state control over its people or it may be for altruistic reasons. Time will tell.
The country needs more housing stock. Discounting housing association properties will add to the house price frenzy which will lead to the next financial disaster. How is the value gap to be funded, or do housing associations just have to take the hit? If the money raised by the original right to buy had been put back into council house building we would have much less of a housing crisis now, but councils were not allowed to do that.
And ba proves afka right, as I see that as a good thing, if people have gone from being in a position that needed housing associations to assist them and find themselves in a position through working and bettering themselves, they should have the ability and motivation to aspire to own a home they may well have bought their families up in not just pay towards the rent and line a huge companies pocket, and why should that home not be the one they have loved furnished and filled with their own items if that's what they want, yes more social cheaper housing is required but you can not make a simple but significant sign of achievement that owning your home bring more difficult than it already is especially if the individuals have not stayed in the handout position and are now self sufficient and funding enough to leave that period of time behind, the sooner we can create a generation that wants to own their own property, understand that the value of pride and self worth is just as if not more so important as the £ notes in your pocket that you get by not wanting or willing to work the better this country will be
It used to be said in military history that the mistake many generals made is refighting their last battle rather than seeking strategies to win their next one .
My view is that the Tory housing association house sale policy is an example of that . The Thatcher policy in the early 80's was one of the main reasons why the Conservatives broke through with natural Labour voters . I am not sure this will have the same impact . Remember most housing associations are non profit making registered charities and not big business .
I too was interested reading @bingaddick 's excellent eloquent defence of the Lib / Dem's ,but I suspect most people who have praised the L/D's on here will not end up voting for them . In my view their problem is due to the view that throughout the Blair years they positioned themselves as a left of centre alternative to New Labour and then went on a 180 degree turn to join the Tories in coalition . The tuition fees debacle will cost them in every seat ,but particularly in the University towns where they did so well last time . Clegg himself has a large student vote in Sheffield Hallam which is why I have a hunch he might not even be in the next parliament .Perversely a Lib / Dem collapse is not good news for Labour and in 2/ 3rds of their seats the Tories would be the ones to benefit if Labour tactical voters switch back to their natural allegiance .
I am expecting some UKIP voters to move back to the Tories and Labour to not do quite as badly in Scotland as some polls are predicting . Indeed if Miliband only lost 20 seats that would be seen as a good result. An interesting poll last night showed support for the union has actually increased in recent months despite the SNP breakthrough .
All in all there is all to play for still ,but it is which L/D seats that are lost which could prove conclusive . If they can hold on to seats like Surbiton , Sutton ,Carshalton, Lewes ,Twickenham etc it will limit Cameron's ability to be the largest party as there will in my view certainly be Labour gains from the Tories . If for example Clegg and Alexander lose and are not even in the next parliament then there would have to be a new leadership who might be more appealing to Labour in potential coalition discussions .
I liked what you posted until you put labour coalition the thought of miliband and the woman from planet of the apes running the country would drive me to drink
Redistributed wealth to me means every single person should get a cheque surely, redistributed wealth back to the government means more money wasted on pens and staples
Russia tried 'redistributive wealth' after the collapse of the Soviet Union .. the result ? .. the 'oligarchs', a k a gangsters and ex KGB men, either bought up or obtained the distributed 'vouchers' given to the populace as their share of the failed command economy, through violence, murder, blackmail and threats, and are now mostly living in London where, along with other wealthy immigrants, they are gradually buying up anything of 'value' that the country has to offer
And ba proves afka right, as I see that as a good thing, if people have gone from being in a position that needed housing associations to assist them and find themselves in a position through working and bettering themselves, they should have the ability and motivation to aspire to own a home they may well have bought their families up in not just pay towards the rent and line a huge companies pocket, and why should that home not be the one they have loved furnished and filled with their own items if that's what they want, yes more social cheaper housing is required but you can not make a simple but significant sign of achievement that owning your home bring more difficult than it already is especially if the individuals have not stayed in the handout position and are now self sufficient and funding enough to leave that period of time behind, the sooner we can create a generation that wants to own their own property, understand that the value of pride and self worth is just as if not more so important as the £ notes in your pocket that you get by not wanting or willing to work the better this country will be
I found it quite difficult to get your point if I'm honest NLA but I think you're saying that if people currently in housing association property have worked hard and saved for the future they should be able to secure a home for their family. I have no problem with that principle, why would I. Let's not forget though a family in a housing association property already has a large degree of long term 'security' anyway.
I'm most certainly not against wider home ownership and in an ideal world everyone who wished to own their home should be given a realistic opportunity to do so. That, to me, means providing an environment where there's a living wage, secure employment, affordable borrowing rates and of course a situation where house price inflation does not lead to prices being 11, 12, 13 times the average local wage as in parts of my own region.
As far as I'm concerned it does NOT mean using the public purse to provide a potential discount of over £100k per household in order to support only SOME members of society where there is already a massive shortfall in affordable and/or social housing. That £100k will have to be found somewhere along the road and listening to Teresa May this morning she doesn't seem to know where and it is, imo anyway, an ideologically driven decision that will exacerbate the mess that is the UK housing market post the Right To Buy policy.
Bournemouth's right here. Housing Associations already allow people to buy their homes through the shared ownership scheme, and if the proposal was simply to put through legislation to make it easier to convert a social tenancy to a shared ownership one, I'd have less issue with that as long as certain safeguards were in place. However, the council Right to Buy scheme has meant 1.8m council houses lost to be replaced by less than 400k, and in some areas of London many of the council places sold are now owned by private landlords charging massively inflated rents. If this is repeated in the housing association sector we're going to have an even bigger housing crisis than we do now.
And that's before we get into the issue of where the money is coming from for these huge discounts. If the HAs are supposed to provide it, that's going to completely bugger up their business plans and make it more difficult to provide new social homes. And if the Government are going to provide it, why aren't the papers complaining about the Tories making uncosted spending commitments like they would for a Labour proposal? I thought the Tories were meant to be fiscally responsible.
ETA Just seen on the Daily Politics that they're claiming they're going to fund it by forcing councils to sell off their stock in the most expensive areas. Seems they are double-spending the money, as they seem to think councils will use the proceeds to build replacement housing stock as well. Also as Andrew Neill pointed out, it doesn't do anything for those paying massive private rents, which is a far bigger problem.
Nothing fuelled the ferocious rising of the British house price more than Maggies 'right to buy' scheme. Sounds good at the time, but the far reaching effects over time could be catastrophic. I fear for my kids ever getting a place of their own ten or twenty years down the line.
Stoking a fire that really doesn't need it is not a good idea in my opinion
I don't find it particularly braggable that one pays their taxes. It is in fact rather pious to say 'well I'm rich enough to avoid taxes but choose not to', as if to rub it into the rest of our faces that we're not rich enough to bother avoiding tax.
She also mires her act with her rather inaccurate claim that David Cameron wishes to get rid of the welfare state in its entirety. And as much as she does her best to slate the welfare state under John Major, it was good enough to give her the support she needed to become a millionaire by writing about a boy who goes to wizard school. Surely a sign that the welfare state was working as it was intended to - enough support to survive on but not enough support to live a decent life on unless you actually earn yourself a living. Champagne socialists like her really don't do their agenda much good with their pathetic polemics.
Nothing fuelled the ferocious rising of the British house price more than Maggies 'right to buy' scheme. Sounds good at the time, but the far reaching effects over time could be catastrophic. I fear for my kids ever getting a place of their own ten or twenty years down the line.
Stoking a fire that really doesn't need it is not a good idea in my opinion
A nice concept about ferocious house price inflation - but it's fantasy to blame "right to buy". (See figures below).
First, selling off a house doesn't make it magically disappear! It's still part of the housing stock. If no more houses had been built and the population had remained the same the ratio of the number of houses available would have been the same. So why would any more have been needed?
Of course the real reason there is pressure on house prices has nothing to do with who owns them. When Thatcher was in power the population was around 56mn; it's now around 64mn. That's 14% more people. A result of more immigration and the immigrants having more children mainly. (Of the 246,000 births in 2012, 91,000 were to mothers born in the UK and 155,000 to mothers who were not. That population pressure plus improving mortality rates and stupidly low mortgage rates are the real driver of house price inflation.
Whether they are owned by the state, landlords or private individuals is an irrelevance.
1976 – 1979
James Callaghan – Labour
Years in power: Three Average property value at start: £11,519 Average property value at end: £16,823 Difference: £5,304 Average increase per year: £1,768 Annualised return: 13%
1979 - 1990
Margaret Thatcher – Conservative
Years in power: 11 Average property value at start: £17,793 Average property value at end: £61,495 Difference: £43,702 Average increase per year: £3,973 Annualised return: 12%
1997 – 2007
Tony Blair – Labour
Years in power: Ten Average property value at start: £55,810 Average property value at end: £172,065 Difference: £116,255 Average increase per year: £11,626 Annualised return: 12%
Now moving to the green and pleasant land is a lovely thought, I don't think being that close to the brewery who make a fantastic pint of black stuff would be good for the liver or home life
All I want is a government that spends our money in the right way, doesnt waste it on wars and employing five people in a local council office to do the jobs that 2 could do if they work hard and efficiently
Supports or elderly, helps us when we fall on hard times to get back on our feet, doesnt reward bone idle lazy baby breeding free loaders
Gives our children a decent education and doesn't have thousands getting degree's that will not help them get a job and fill them with unreal unrealistic expectations, help parents explain that through hard work ambition and self respect you can do anything you wish, but that sometimes working your way up the ladder gives you more wealth of education and experience than a degree will give or that it's a better option than excepting hand outs and having no ambition
Sorry, I forgot to say, the impact of second homes should not be ignored. I doubt very many people had second homes in Thatcher's era.
Anyway, in 2011 1.6mn people owned a second home in the UK which they used for a month or more. That's 2.6% of the population. A further 1.5% have second homes abroad.
I did not too one min BA think that you would feel it was a bad thing to allow people to buy through the scheme you mention, my point although rambled, was that in order to change the thought process and attitude of the numerous young people who have witnessed and grown up seeing the benefits system as good an option as working, by offering the incentive and subsidising that if that's the way it is, to allow the next generation to see work pays, saving pays then I am all for it
Oddly (are they using the same PR outfit as Labour ) there's the same "yes, I'm in" or "I'm not decided yet" stuff on the home page. But then, when you skip that and get on to the main site, you get straight to a link to the manifesto - no messing about. Overall, and perhaps as you'd expect a much slicker looking site and more user friendly. I'll be back when I've read the manifesto!
As a 22 year old, I'm not sure I'll ever earn enough money to own a home of my own in the South East.
i'm just about to turn 24 (Arrrgh) and in the same boat. I think everyone our age is the same. Even if i did, I'm not going to buy a house until the bubble bursts, i dont want to be stuck paying off a mortgage that my house isn't worth.
Under the last government, hard work and self betterment was not encouraged. I know many many teenagers, who 5 years ago had no aspiration, because it was not encouraged.
They were brought up with little hope of a job and started life, after leaving school on benefits, thinking that was all they had to look forward to.
Benefits paid as much, probably more, than many junior roles, so there was no point in any case, they felt.
Additionally, there was a good chance, that they could secure their "own" home, by way of a council property and (girls) getting pregnant asap.
Thankfully, 5 years on, the present coalition has changed the ethos and most of these teenagers, have now found a job and their attitude has changed.
They now have hope for the future, which they never had 5 years ago.
It is still very very difficult on low wages, but at least they have made a start.
I have absolutely no doubt, that the posters on here, that have different views to me, will disagree.
Nothing fuelled the ferocious rising of the British house price more than Maggies 'right to buy' scheme. Sounds good at the time, but the far reaching effects over time could be catastrophic. I fear for my kids ever getting a place of their own ten or twenty years down the line.
Stoking a fire that really doesn't need it is not a good idea in my opinion
A nice concept about ferocious house price inflation - but it's fantasy to blame "right to buy". (See figures below).
First, selling off a house doesn't make it magically disappear! It's still part of the housing stock. If no more houses had been built and the population had remained the same the ratio of the number of houses available would have been the same. So why would any more have been needed?
Of course the real reason there is pressure on house prices has nothing to do with who owns them. When Thatcher was in power the population was around 56mn; it's now around 64mn. That's 14% more people. A result of more immigration and the immigrants having more children mainly. (Of the 246,000 births in 2012, 91,000 were to mothers born in the UK and 155,000 to mothers who were not. That population pressure plus improving mortality rates and stupidly low mortgage rates are the real driver of house price inflation.
Whether they are owned by the state, landlords or private individuals is an irrelevance.
1976 – 1979
James Callaghan – Labour
Years in power: Three Average property value at start: £11,519 Average property value at end: £16,823 Difference: £5,304 Average increase per year: £1,768 Annualised return: 13%
1979 - 1990
Margaret Thatcher – Conservative
Years in power: 11 Average property value at start: £17,793 Average property value at end: £61,495 Difference: £43,702 Average increase per year: £3,973 Annualised return: 12%
1997 – 2007
Tony Blair – Labour
Years in power: Ten Average property value at start: £55,810 Average property value at end: £172,065 Difference: £116,255 Average increase per year: £11,626 Annualised return: 12%
Exactly the same as under Thatcher!
All well and good. But the stats you put up clearly show that Thatcher opened the gates and Blair went along with the tide!
Well, less pages but maybe -I'm not checking - a smaller type font than the Labour manifesto.
82pp, 20 of which are glossies of more random people, (it's possible they look happier and more well fed than the Labour people), 2 pictures of Dave plus another on the front cover with his cabinet colleagues. (The shadow cabinet were entirely missing from the Labour publication. ) Also a picture of Elizabeth Tower nee St Stephen's Tower, commonly misnamed Big Ben, and another of the Scales of Justice from Central Criminal Court. So, again too many pictures not enough words only more so!
There does seem to be some meat on the bones though. The same promise as Labour about tax rates not increasing on VAT, Income Tax and NI. But with the comforting promise to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the 40% tax threshold to £50k.
3mn new apprentices (where do they find these people? Although there is an aim to abolish long-term youth unemployment.); 200,000 new starter homes; info specific for some regions like better rail links for East Anglia; cutting red tape (yeah right); a prompt payment code - good for small businesses; increases to the minimum wage; tax-free child care (whatever that means); continue to increase spending on the NHS; finding a cure for dementia (if they pull that one off!); freeze the BBC licence fee; lots of blah, blah blah about Govt waste, etc etc; scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights.
Perhaps of most interest is a commitment (haven't they already said this?) to give English MPs a veto over matters only affecting England, including income tax. So it sounds like Scotland and Wales would be raising their own money to spend how they like - good!
Five paragraphs on Northern Ireland.
On the down side (from my point of view): as expected a free vote on allowing the return of fox hunting; and a referendum on the EU.
As for Dave's foreword: plenty of use of the word "economy" lots of "country" and more (incorrect) usage of "Britain" without the "Great" than Ed; (It seems as if The United Kingdom is a taboo phrase for the main parties!)
I did not too one min BA think that you would feel it was a bad thing to allow people to buy through the scheme you mention, my point although rambled, was that in order to change the thought process and attitude of the numerous young people who have witnessed and grown up seeing the benefits system as good an option as working, by offering the incentive and subsidising that if that's the way it is, to allow the next generation to see work pays, saving pays then I am all for it
But in order for work to pay NLA, your wages need to cover your outgoings reliably. With sky high private sector rents, and even so-called "affordable rents" being up to 80% of market rates, unless you can get a job that provides regular hours at living wage (which is significantly more than minimum wage), then work doesn't pay. Providing an incentive to the very small number of people who've been lucky enough to get a Housing Association tenancy, and will actually be in a position to get a mortgage (good luck getting one of those if you're on a zero hours contract) rather than dealing with the bigger issues in the housing and labour markets that mean work doesn't pay is just a tiny fig-leaf. And this fig-leaf actually going to make the situation worse, as they are going to force councils to sell off council housing in expensive areas to fund it, and on past history only 1 in 5 of the properties sold off was replaced with new homes. We need MORE social housing, not less.
Under the last government, hard work and self betterment was not encouraged. I know many many teenagers, who 5 years ago had no aspiration, because it was not encouraged.
They were brought up with little hope of a job and started life, after leaving school on benefits, thinking that was all they had to look forward to.
Benefits paid as much, probably more, than many junior roles, so there was no point in any case, they felt.
Additionally, there was a good chance, that they could secure their "own" home, by way of a council property and (girls) getting pregnant asap.
Thankfully, 5 years on, the present coalition has changed the ethos and most of these teenagers, have now found a job and their attitude has changed.
They now have hope for the future, which they never had 5 years ago.
It is still very very difficult on low wages, but at least they have made a start.
I have absolutely no doubt, that the posters on here, that have different views to me, will disagree.
But I know what I have seen, with my own eyes.
I think you need to look a back a bit further than the last Government. Mottingham for example, in the 90's (Pre 97) was full to brim of single english teenage mothers who were given flats, living of benefits with no aspiration to do a days work.
Comments
Of my three best mates one is a Labour supporter, who is voting UKIP this time because he hates Miliband. One was a Tory and now supports the Greens. The other is a swing voter.
We have argued the toss over politics for years. We are still mates. :-)
Whoever is not in power will always be pledging to save the country / economy/ NHS/ armed forces etc and putting 'hardworking families' first.
Will always be the case.
Then were against the scheme in 1983, then for it in 1985.
The best approach was in 1997 when sales were restricted in areas of shortage. Very sensible and improved by the 5 year ownership modification in 2005.
Improved again in 2012 with proposals that for every home sold, another would be built for affordable rent.
Abolished in Scotland, but this may be because the Scottish parliament want more state control over its people or it may be for altruistic reasons. Time will tell.
If the money raised by the original right to buy had been put back into council house building we would have much less of a housing crisis now, but councils were not allowed to do that.
My view is that the Tory housing association house sale policy is an example of that . The Thatcher policy in the early 80's was one of the main reasons why the Conservatives broke through with natural Labour voters . I am not sure this will have the same impact . Remember most housing associations are non profit making registered charities and not big business .
I too was interested reading @bingaddick 's excellent eloquent defence of the Lib / Dem's ,but I suspect most people who have praised the L/D's on here will not end up voting for them . In my view their problem is due to the view that throughout the Blair years they positioned themselves as a left of centre alternative to New Labour and then went on a 180 degree turn to join the Tories in coalition . The tuition fees debacle will cost them in every seat ,but particularly in the University towns where they did so well last time . Clegg himself has a large student vote in Sheffield Hallam which is why I have a hunch he might not even be in the next parliament .Perversely a Lib / Dem collapse is not good news for Labour and in 2/ 3rds of their seats the Tories would be the ones to benefit if Labour tactical voters switch back to their natural allegiance .
I am expecting some UKIP voters to move back to the Tories and Labour to not do quite as badly in Scotland as some polls are predicting . Indeed if Miliband only lost 20 seats that would be seen as a good result. An interesting poll last night showed support for the union has actually increased in recent months despite the SNP breakthrough .
All in all there is all to play for still ,but it is which L/D seats that are lost which could prove conclusive . If they can hold on to seats like Surbiton , Sutton ,Carshalton, Lewes ,Twickenham etc it will limit Cameron's ability to be the largest party as there will in my view certainly be Labour gains from the Tories . If for example Clegg and Alexander lose and are not even in the next parliament then there would have to be a new leadership who might be more appealing to Labour in potential coalition discussions .
I'm most certainly not against wider home ownership and in an ideal world everyone who wished to own their home should be given a realistic opportunity to do so. That, to me, means providing an environment where there's a living wage, secure employment, affordable borrowing rates and of course a situation where house price inflation does not lead to prices being 11, 12, 13 times the average local wage as in parts of my own region.
As far as I'm concerned it does NOT mean using the public purse to provide a potential discount of over £100k per household in order to support only SOME members of society where there is already a massive shortfall in affordable and/or social housing. That £100k will have to be found somewhere along the road and listening to Teresa May this morning she doesn't seem to know where and it is, imo anyway, an ideologically driven decision that will exacerbate the mess that is the UK housing market post the Right To Buy policy.
And that's before we get into the issue of where the money is coming from for these huge discounts. If the HAs are supposed to provide it, that's going to completely bugger up their business plans and make it more difficult to provide new social homes. And if the Government are going to provide it, why aren't the papers complaining about the Tories making uncosted spending commitments like they would for a Labour proposal? I thought the Tories were meant to be fiscally responsible.
ETA Just seen on the Daily Politics that they're claiming they're going to fund it by forcing councils to sell off their stock in the most expensive areas. Seems they are double-spending the money, as they seem to think councils will use the proceeds to build replacement housing stock as well. Also as Andrew Neill pointed out, it doesn't do anything for those paying massive private rents, which is a far bigger problem.
Stoking a fire that really doesn't need it is not a good idea in my opinion
She also mires her act with her rather inaccurate claim that David Cameron wishes to get rid of the welfare state in its entirety. And as much as she does her best to slate the welfare state under John Major, it was good enough to give her the support she needed to become a millionaire by writing about a boy who goes to wizard school. Surely a sign that the welfare state was working as it was intended to - enough support to survive on but not enough support to live a decent life on unless you actually earn yourself a living. Champagne socialists like her really don't do their agenda much good with their pathetic polemics.
Also, hi everyone! Did you miss me?
First, selling off a house doesn't make it magically disappear! It's still part of the housing stock. If no more houses had been built and the population had remained the same the ratio of the number of houses available would have been the same. So why would any more have been needed?
Of course the real reason there is pressure on house prices has nothing to do with who owns them. When Thatcher was in power the population was around 56mn; it's now around 64mn. That's 14% more people. A result of more immigration and the immigrants having more children mainly. (Of the 246,000 births in 2012, 91,000 were to mothers born in the UK and 155,000 to mothers who were not.
That population pressure plus improving mortality rates and stupidly low mortgage rates are the real driver of house price inflation.
Whether they are owned by the state, landlords or private individuals is an irrelevance.
1976 – 1979
James Callaghan – Labour
Years in power: Three
Average property value at start: £11,519
Average property value at end: £16,823
Difference: £5,304
Average increase per year: £1,768
Annualised return: 13%
1979 - 1990
Margaret Thatcher – Conservative
Years in power: 11
Average property value at start: £17,793
Average property value at end: £61,495
Difference: £43,702
Average increase per year: £3,973
Annualised return: 12%
1997 – 2007
Tony Blair – Labour
Years in power: Ten
Average property value at start: £55,810
Average property value at end: £172,065
Difference: £116,255
Average increase per year: £11,626
Annualised return: 12%
Exactly the same as under Thatcher!
Anyway, in 2011 1.6mn people owned a second home in the UK which they used for a month or more. That's 2.6% of the population. A further 1.5% have second homes abroad.
Oddly (are they using the same PR outfit as Labour
Under the last government, hard work and self betterment was not encouraged.
I know many many teenagers, who 5 years ago had no aspiration, because it was not encouraged.
They were brought up with little hope of a job and started life, after leaving school on benefits, thinking that was all they had to look forward to.
Benefits paid as much, probably more, than many junior roles, so there was no point in any case, they felt.
Additionally, there was a good chance, that they could secure their "own" home, by way of a council property and (girls) getting pregnant asap.
Thankfully, 5 years on, the present coalition has changed the ethos and most of these teenagers, have now found a job and their attitude has changed.
They now have hope for the future, which they never had 5 years ago.
It is still very very difficult on low wages, but at least they have made a start.
I have absolutely no doubt, that the posters on here, that have different views to me, will disagree.
But I know what I have seen, with my own eyes.
82pp, 20 of which are glossies of more random people, (it's possible they look happier and more well fed than the Labour people), 2 pictures of Dave plus another on the front cover with his cabinet colleagues. (The shadow cabinet were entirely missing from the Labour publication. ) Also a picture of Elizabeth Tower nee St Stephen's Tower, commonly misnamed Big Ben, and another of the Scales of Justice from Central Criminal Court. So, again too many pictures not enough words only more so!
There does seem to be some meat on the bones though. The same promise as Labour about tax rates not increasing on VAT, Income Tax and NI. But with the comforting promise to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the 40% tax threshold to £50k.
3mn new apprentices (where do they find these people? Although there is an aim to abolish long-term youth unemployment.); 200,000 new starter homes; info specific for some regions like better rail links for East Anglia; cutting red tape (yeah right); a prompt payment code - good for small businesses; increases to the minimum wage; tax-free child care (whatever that means); continue to increase spending on the NHS; finding a cure for dementia (if they pull that one off!); freeze the BBC licence fee; lots of blah, blah blah about Govt waste, etc etc; scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights.
Perhaps of most interest is a commitment (haven't they already said this?) to give English MPs a veto over matters only affecting England, including income tax. So it sounds like Scotland and Wales would be raising their own money to spend how they like - good!
Five paragraphs on Northern Ireland.
On the down side (from my point of view): as expected a free vote on allowing the return of fox hunting; and a referendum on the EU.
As for Dave's foreword: plenty of use of the word "economy" lots of "country" and more (incorrect) usage of "Britain" without the "Great" than Ed; (It seems as if The United Kingdom is a taboo phrase for the main parties!)
Here is the link if anyone is interested. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf