UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
That's complete bollocks, they have built literally thousands of 1 and 2 bedroom flats over the past 5 years in my town. Of course, that is just in my town, so I'm guessing it only counts as anecdotal?
The amount of home building going on at the moment is fecking insane, god knows who is going to live in them all. There are plans in my borough to build another nearly 15K homes over the next 5 years too.
On my train journey into London, there are homes going up in their thousands, and that's not an exaggeration. These are mostly 1 and 2 bedroom flats in not particularly affluent areas no more than a 20 minute train ride from Central London, not £1M penthouses in town.
I would like to know what the real figures are for new homes being built, because someone isn't telling the truth.
You will not be hurt as much as you imagine, but will still be expected to pay a little more. Labour is proposing to reintroduce a "small profits rate" on companies with a turnover under £300k. This will be held at 19% for 2020/21 then increase to 21% by 2022/23 (No further increases are scheduled).
As for the headline rate, Labour's not proposing to raise it back to 2010 levels, but to increase it incrementally to 26% over 3 years (21%, 24%, 26%).
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change.pdf (pg 31)
I'd like the real figure too. They've been building quite a lot in Manchester near uni! I'm guessing this particular scheme in its isolation resulted in zero but that doesn't mean other schemes didn't go ahead.
Are they affordable Colin? It's not just the number, accessibility whether renting or buying is massive obstacle too. What i imagine is happening, is these homes are being sold to the wealthy to rent them out.
And I would also imagine most of those houses are being built by private developers, so the gov aren't actually providing themselves.
That is very good news.
brutal. I really wish politicians across all parties were challenged like that on daily basis though. It might force them to up their game and do what they're actually employed to do.This sort of thing:
https://southallvillage.co.uk/
There are a mixture of affordable housing, shared ownership, Help to Buy etc, it's fairly typical of the sort of developments you see all over the place.
You might be thinking of ''affordable'' housing and not starter homes -
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...government-pledge_uk_5dc030f6e4b0bedb2d4fa7f7
The reality is the tories gave up starter homes in 2017.
There's plenty of homes being built in my area too, minimum £350k, average over £500k. They aren't starter homes.
The point of starter home is that it costs up to £250k (£450k in London) for first time buyers to get on the market.
Those apartments in London (I see them on my commute too, and considered purchasing one) are not cheap at all, especially after you factor in all the associated fees.
As you'd expect the clause v meeting has tamed most of the policies really.
I've only skimmed the news highlights so far but it seems a decent enough manifesto. Don't agree with all of it (tuition shouldn't be free for all) but it looks like a fairer platform for the country which is what i tend to vote on more than anything.
I've only skimmed the news highlights so far but it seems a decent enough manifesto. Don't agree with all of it (tuition shouldn't be free for all) but it looks like a fairer platform for the country which is what i tend to vote on more than anything.
Found this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/20/housebuilding-data-shows-dearth-of-homes-for-
affordable-renting
Cliffs notes:
- Ministers last month celebrated increases in overall housebuilding to a rate of more than 200,000 a year, although that remains short of the 250,000-a-year target set in the Conservatives’ 2017 general election manifesto.
- The number of new homes which the government classes as affordable was 57,485 in 2018-19, a figure surpassed four times in the last decade.
- Only 37,825 new homes were built to be let at discounted rents last year, despite a national housing waiting list of more than 1.1 million households.
- The fastest rising subset of “affordable homes” was shared ownership housing which involves tenants buying part of the property. The number of these properties completed increased from 11,084 to 17,024.
- The number of new homes classed as social housing and available at the cheapest rents from councils remained historically low at a mere 6,287, the second-lowest level in peacetime since council house building began in earnest in 1921.
Depends on the % they normally range beetwen 10 to 40%, sometimes none, if the developer can prove the scheme would become unviable with affordable provision. Even at best case scenario only 4 out of 10 would be affordable.
As pointed out by others there is also a difference between affordable and starter homes.
That was so bad. There's no way that a politician can have all figures in their heads for everything so I have some sympathy, but he shouldn't lie to pretend he does and more importantly it's incredible that in today's world there isn't an internal app (or even slack group!) so they can get the information immediately. It made me laugh when he had to call / receive a text to get the figures.
It also shows that none of the parties actually put the full details on their website. What the caller was asking for is basic common sense, what is it going to cost and where will the funds come from (with full calculated figures to prove it). The whole political system is so amateur and takes us for fools.
But to be fair if it is a big pledge like that, he should know it inside out.
Last edited:
Quite savage tax’s on middle income voters. Can’t see why any would vote for Labour.
———————————————————
Mr Corbyn announced a new "super" income tax rate of 50 per cent on people earning £125,000 and over, as well as lowering the threshold for the additional income tax rate of 45 per cent from £150,000 to £80,000. Also scrapping married couple allowances.
British holiday home owners will have to pay a new tax equivalent to double their current council tax, which the party hopes will raise £560 million a year.
George Osborne's inheritance tax cut will be reversed in a raid that will hit middle class families. It follows the publication of a report commissioned by Labour earlier this year, which proposed scrapping the current £475,000 threshold it and replacing it with a Lifetime Gifts Tax, which would see the cap lowered to £125,000.
———————————————————
Mr Corbyn announced a new "super" income tax rate of 50 per cent on people earning £125,000 and over, as well as lowering the threshold for the additional income tax rate of 45 per cent from £150,000 to £80,000. Also scrapping married couple allowances.
British holiday home owners will have to pay a new tax equivalent to double their current council tax, which the party hopes will raise £560 million a year.
George Osborne's inheritance tax cut will be reversed in a raid that will hit middle class families. It follows the publication of a report commissioned by Labour earlier this year, which proposed scrapping the current £475,000 threshold it and replacing it with a Lifetime Gifts Tax, which would see the cap lowered to £125,000.
Yeah I'm likely giving to much credit to the tories. The underline point is why would anyone believe what the tories have to say on housing.
True, at least where the money was coming from which he got completely incorrect.
There is also this, which doesn't help the housing supply and consequently prices:
https://www.theguardian.com/society...land-for-record-130000-homes-analysis-reveals
Which the Tories have done nothing about. They probably have a few mates in the industry so makes sense.
What do you think the middle income is out of interest?
Not too much about homelessness there, but there's a few snippets.
They talk about investing and expanding hostels, which suggests they don't back Housing First. That's a good thing in my view, but its swimming against the tide in terms of the sector so its interesting nonetheless.
The £1bn per year extra spend is not as much as it sounds (its £1.1bn in the grey book for some reason). Current spend is a pitiful £500m (best guess, true figures are hard to obtain). In 2003 we were spending £1.6bn per year on the Supporting People programme, but that's worth closer to £2.5bn when inflation's taken into account. If Labour takes spending back up to the ~£1.5bn range its still quite a bit lower than it was.
Also, its notable that the money will be spent on Council's homelessness services. That implies additional in-house provision rather than outsourced. That would tie up with their insourcing agenda, which in my opinion is a bad idea for frontline charities.
Ending rough sleeping in 5 years won't happen, that's a daft claim to make. Even stopping the rise will take a shed load of strategic work and money in the next Parliament. I know they want to sound progressive and positive, but it suggests a naivety about the problem.
They talk about investing and expanding hostels, which suggests they don't back Housing First. That's a good thing in my view, but its swimming against the tide in terms of the sector so its interesting nonetheless.
The £1bn per year extra spend is not as much as it sounds (its £1.1bn in the grey book for some reason). Current spend is a pitiful £500m (best guess, true figures are hard to obtain). In 2003 we were spending £1.6bn per year on the Supporting People programme, but that's worth closer to £2.5bn when inflation's taken into account. If Labour takes spending back up to the ~£1.5bn range its still quite a bit lower than it was.
Also, its notable that the money will be spent on Council's homelessness services. That implies additional in-house provision rather than outsourced. That would tie up with their insourcing agenda, which in my opinion is a bad idea for frontline charities.
Ending rough sleeping in 5 years won't happen, that's a daft claim to make. Even stopping the rise will take a shed load of strategic work and money in the next Parliament. I know they want to sound progressive and positive, but it suggests a naivety about the problem.
Either way, Andrew Neil's claim is bollocks.
The level of borrowing suggested by Labour is utterly insane! That level of additional borrowing would cause inflation to boom and pump up interest rates significantly. Bare in mind that with the level of income to mortgage now, it would only take a few points of % in interest on mortgages and people will start to lose their homes.
Mortgage rates would hike, house prices would likely fall which means people wouldnt be able to move and would be strangled with debt.
Its the most irresponsible manifesto that i have ever seen. Im not saying the tories are the answer but I feel that Labour under corbyn are so far away from being credible its frightening. Destroying the party and thats a massive shame.
Mortgage rates would hike, house prices would likely fall which means people wouldnt be able to move and would be strangled with debt.
Its the most irresponsible manifesto that i have ever seen. Im not saying the tories are the answer but I feel that Labour under corbyn are so far away from being credible its frightening. Destroying the party and thats a massive shame.
80k is not middle income, it's like 2.5x the median wage or something. If the income tax brackets are as you described (I can't find an official confirmation) A person earning 125k would be paying an extra 2k on their income, taking home something like 76k rather than 78.
As for this inheritance tax malarky, clearly Labour have decided not to go for a lifetime gifts tax, or a cap lowered to 125k. Any attempt to push that notion is clearly scaremongering at this point.
In reality Labour's inheritance tax plan seems like it will allow for each individual to provide 325k tax free to their child (down from 500k right now) and a combined limit of 650k. According to the 2016 ONS wealth and Assets survey almost 90% of UK households have a total wealth lower than this total. 80% have less than 400k. This policy definitely sucks more for homeowners in the home counties though, I agree with that.
£80,000 a year, middle income
I love inheritance taxes, so not bothered about that aspect. I do worry about brain drain though. I have over 10 friends who have already moved to more tax efficient places (Hong Kong, New York, Singapore, Dubai, Abu Dhabi) or friends who are doctors who have moved to Australia as they earn more. I have had two of those friends return, and say they plan to leave again as they can't adjust to the taxes we already have.
He was talking specifically about the starter home initiative which was a pledge to build homes with a minimum 20% discount for first time buyers. This wasn't about building homes, but about a grant to make first time buyers pay less to get into the market.
There's been a lot of house building generally, but none under this initiative which was actually a manifesto pledge.
https://www.which.co.uk/money/mortg...-buyers/starter-homes-initiative-ats5k4w1dbpk
Sorry, it appears that we did get our wires crossed. That said, I still think that from Corbyn's phrasing of his answer that he would allow Indyref2 later in the government cycle in order for him to become PM. My guess is that he'd be confident of winning it after shaping the country for a few years. We'd likely still be in the EU and the Scots are 'lefties' after all.
It's stories like yours that make me wish they had a better grading system for corporation tax. You know, instead of it being 19% regardless of you making more or less than 300k profit, have it tiered better. 19% for up to 100k, 21% for up to 300k, 25% for above.
Not perfect but it gives smaller businesses chances to develop and doesn't put people like yourself off, I wouldn't think?
Isn't a "starter home" different in definition? They are aimed for first time buyers which were to be sold at a 20% discount. I don't think we've seen any of those.
No it's not.
They built no starter homes.
They lost 2.3bn in doing so, these are all facts.
Yes, I agree and it would seem from what @Ekkie Thump said that is what's planned in the Labour manifesto. Seems sensible to me if the plan is to make large corporations pay more.
I guess, though I personally don't think the proposed increases are likely anywhere near severe enough to make a significant difference.
Everything should be free!
Am I doing it right?
Am I doing it right?
£80,000 a year, middle income
Ikr. Perhaps if you live in...I don't know, Monaco, it sounds about right.
The interview is from 3rd October.
Where's the Tory manifesto btw? Or are they just waiting to steal the bits people like from the Labour one and then sprinkle in some of their own bullshit?
True, the Tories promised to build 200,000 starter homes & built none.
BJ promised to leave the EU on October 31st & it's now November 21st
40 new hospitals promised to be built, in reality 6 have been upgraded and 34 have been given a small cash increase (after austerity cuts)
The list goes on & on
The Labour social media team are missing open goal opportunities to counter
- Status