Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

As a low maintenance chap who has no intention to marry or have kids, owning a property would be the daftest decision this side of signing Heskey

[peterms]

I'm not trying to make money though. I just don't see the virtue in renting at all. Why pay into a house/flat that you will never be any closer to owning?

 

I'd rather own a house and have something to sell when I want to be a 'first time buyer' with my partner/fiancee/wife, than have wasted all that money renting. This might not be a correct opinion, but it's one I've held for a while.

 

EDIT: Also the actual virtue of saying 'this is my house' is massive for me.

 

In a situation where house prices reliably continue to rise faster than inflation, then buying somewhere makes financial sense (as long as you aren't faced with things like dry rot, or a new fracking venture starting up nearby).

 

If house prices fell and interest rates increased, so that in 5 years you had a house worth less than you paid for it but had paid a mortgage every month, wouldn't that seem like dead money too?  Renting can make more sense in conditions of uncertainty - not only personal uncertainty, like not knowing if you'll still be in that area in a year, but also economic uncertainty.  But our cultural attitude towards housing is largely based on those many decades of a reasonably stable economy and house prices rising faster than inflation.

 

And if you were to end up with negative equity and a mortgage you can't afford any longer, you'll very quickly find it's not your house at all - you were just keeping it nicely maintained and weatherproof for the bank.

[StefanAVFC]

I'm not in economical or personal uncertainty though as I'm going into a career where I can (and I'm hoping) move up quickly and earn good money. I mean the opening salary is comfortably enough to keep up with the mortgage and then some.

 

Not in my first property because I'm not intending on staying there long. It's a temporary thing until I settle down with a partner. It makes economic sense to have something to sell when buying a real first property, especially when there will be 2 incomes contributing towards the mortgage eventually. Even if I don't end up selling, I'll still be having a partner to contribute to the costs.

[rjw63]

The Education system does need a massive overhaul but not in the way Mr Gove thinks, It needs to break away from the indoctrination of kids and teach them things to make them into free thinking free minded capable adults. Unfortunately this goes against what is good for the government and the big financial entities which influence it.

 

All Mr Gove is proposing is to apportion blame, for a system that is designed to achieve what it does, to the professionals who work in the system, then tinker with it under the guise of ground breaking reform whilst making no changes of merit

Obviously making ex-soldiers into teachers who will only have to do half the amount of training as ordinary people is a stroke of genius.

 

Not.

[peterms]

The next big scandal waiting to happen.

 

Lynton Crosby under pressure to reveal clients of lobbying firm

 

New details emerge of how Tory strategy guru combines role as political adviser with that of commercial lobbyist

 

David Cameron is under pressure to force his chief election strategist, Lynton Crosby, to reveal the identity of his business clients as new details emerge of the way the Australian combines roles as the Tories' top political adviser with that of a commercial lobbyist. Crosby's position as the Conservatives' election guru – at the same time as heading his own communications, polling and lobbying firm, Crosby Textor, whose client list is not made public – is causing growing unease inside the party and the coalition, as ministers prepare to introduce sweeping new transparency rules on the role of lobbyists in public life.

Labour and Tory MPs, backed by pressure groups, insisted that Crosby – who is due to address Conservatives in the House of Commons on party strategy – should have to reveal his clients under the planned clean-up of lobbying rules triggered by recent scandals.

 

Since the Australian was appointed by the prime minister last November to mastermind Tory tactics, having run Boris Johnson's successful campaign for re-election as London mayor last year, the government has abruptly dropped policies on minimum pricing for alcohol and cigarette packaging. It had also put on ice plans for a register of lobbyists. While Cameron insists Crosby does not advise him on policy but only on political strategy, critics have raised questions about the impression of potential conflicts of interest. Crosby Textor has represented tobacco and alcohol firms and was involved with British American Tobacco when the company was opposing new rules on packaging in Australia.

 

Tory MP Dr Sarah Wollaston, who was angered by the dropping of minimum alcohol pricing by the coalition, said: "I think those lobbyists with roles at the heart of any party should have to reveal their major clients, and that includes Lynton Crosby."

 

The extent of Crosby's links with the Tory high command are raising fresh questions. He was recently invited by Boris Johnson on a five-day trip to the United Arab Emirates, and represented the UK arm of his company, CTF Partners, as one of a group of entrepreneurs trying to drum up business for the capital. Critics are asking why the London-based firm, which only employs about 15 people, was present when other of the capital's far bigger employers would have jumped at the chance to pitch for lucrative UAE contracts and meet some of the Gulf's richest entrepreneurs in the delegation.

 

The Observer has learned that Crosby hosted and funded a "networking dinner" during the visit to the Gulf and paid for the mayor to fly back to London in the middle of the trip so Johnson could attend Margaret Thatcher's funeral. The airline Emirates paid for him on the return leg back to the UAE. Johnson initially failed to register the flights from Crosby and Emirates within the specified 28-day limit, but did so later after questions were raised by Labour. . The mayor's office said the delay was an "administrative error".

 

The leader of the Labour group on the London assembly, Len Duvall, said Crosby's presence on the trade mission was a disgrace: "Boris's choice of travelling partner was bizarre. Taking Lynton Crosby on this trip made no sense at all, it was blatant cronyism."

 

The mayor's official spokesman said: "All of the delegation paid their own way, each attended some of the mayor's meetings and engagements and every member of the delegation, including CTF Partners, was there to help promote trade and investment between London and the Gulf by showcasing the expertise of London-based businesses, in order to drive jobs and growth in London."

 

While there is no suggestion that Crosby has broken any rules, his position poses serious problems for Cameron whose government has, over the past fortnight, been forced to push forward new legislation for a compulsory register of lobbyists.

 

Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg vowed to act after two Labour peers were suspended and another quit the Ulster Unionist whip over claims they breached parliamentary rules on links with lobbyists. The Tory MP Patrick Mercer also resigned the Tory whip over allegations he agreed to be paid £1,000 a day in return for using his position in parliament to get Fiji readmitted to the Commonwealth.

 

Last month Cameron defended Crosby's right to keep his clients secret. "He doesn't lobby me. He gives political advice so his work, his lobbying, the lobbying business is a matter for the lobbying business," Cameron told reporters.

 

Tamasin Cave, director of the campaign group Spinwatch, said: "It's just not tenable that someone who runs an international commercial lobbying business can be allowed to get so close to the heart of the British government. Crosby embodies the problem with lobbying: unfettered access combined with absolute secrecy. As a minimum, he must declare his clients."

 

A Conservative party representative said: "The position is very clear. Lynton Crosby gives political advice to the prime minister and the Conservative party. He does not lobby the government, or advise on government policy."

 

[chrisp65]

Stefan,

 

I do feel for anyone trying to buy a house these days,  we thought we had it tough when I was buying. First time round, I bought at what turned out to be a peak, buying a house for £33k that 10 years later I sold for £30k. The next time I bought, I bought for £68k and that house has since tripled in price. It's basically the same house and shouldn't be that sort of stupid money.

 

But, in my opinion you are right about buying and renting. Yes you have some flexibility with rental and you don't worry about the roof blowing off. But 25 years down the line you've paid out £250k in rent and you have nothing. I've stuck a pond and some apple trees in my garden, I didn't have to ask permission from my landlord.

 

There are vast tracts of land capable of taking vast amounts of housing and its all locked up in rich companies land banks. It costs about £90k to build a house, but they all know that with restricted supply they can sell them for double that. Why make £90k by going to the trouble of building 10 houses and selling them for £9k profit when you can build 1 house and demand will drive that price up. It's a rigged market.

 

I don't envy you lot, and I worry for the next lot.

[StefanAVFC]

I know it's gonna be rubbish, but it's gotta be done. It's a bonus that I'm going into a settled profession, but if Gove has his way then it could be far less settled.

 

I guess that's why I hate him so much. I've been looking forward to getting my own classroom for so long and now he could potentially ruin it.

[snowychap]

Then again if we got rid of the concept of perpetual 'ownership' of land (is that actually the case in the UK by the way - isn't all land held subject to the crown?), we might see that actually there ought not to be so much of a difference between renting and purchasing (that would involve a different set up regarding landlords and longer, more secure tenancies obviously).

 

Edited.

Edited June 8, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

 

 

I'm not trying to make money though. I just don't see the virtue in renting at all. Why pay into a house/flat that you will never be any closer to owning?

 

I'd rather own a house and have something to sell when I want to be a 'first time buyer' with my partner/fiancee/wife, than have wasted all that money renting. This might not be a correct opinion, but it's one I've held for a while.

 

 

I agree with this. If you just see a property as somewhere to live and not an investment, generally within 30 or 40 years you will have no actual housing costs. This in most cases will far outweigh most pensions. Furthermore nor should your offspring

 

So no bills or council tax or maintenance?

 

 

I guess you wou would have bills or council tax whether you rented or bought. So I don't include those in housing costs, just  a tax on, well being alive really. Maintenance you have a point, but I would reckon that is very small compared to the cost of renting. If I had spent £10,000 in the last 8 years, and thats a guess at the extreme high end, that still only comes out at about £100 per month. We could of course, if times got difficult, not decorate so much, or do so much in the garden. In fact if we wanted to we could just replace what broke. I reckon that would be about £200 a year. 

 

So I suppose in our case I should amend that to say our housing costs would be a fiver a week

[chrisp65]

Then again if we got rid of the concept of perpetual 'ownership' of land (is that actually the case in the UK by the way?), we might see that actually there ought not to be a difference between renting and purchasing (that would involve a different set up regarding landlords and longer, more secure tenancies obviously).

 

Ownership of land is a fine stream of discussion to go down, my guess is that the system isn't going to fundamentally change any time soon and I've got kids. So yes, the basic principle of ownership (and the Queen actually owning everything), would be addressed in my ideal world.

But that's all a bit abstract when you have a real life happening now and you want a garden and a garage.

[snowychap]

 

Then again if we got rid of the concept of perpetual 'ownership' of land (is that actually the case in the UK by the way?), we might see that actually there ought not to be a difference between renting and purchasing (that would involve a different set up regarding landlords and longer, more secure tenancies obviously).

 

Ownership of land is a fine stream of discussion to go down, my guess is that the system isn't going to fundamentally change any time soon and I've got kids. So yes, the basic principle of ownership (and the Queen actually owning everything), would be addressed in my ideal world.

But that's all a bit abstract when you have a real life happening now and you want a garden and a garage.

 

 

Well, you seem to have given up the dream of absolute power rather too readily might I say.

 

On a more serious note not all 'ownership' is the freehold which allows you ponds, apple trees, gardens and garages of your wish (and even then always - Pickles not withstanding) so I don't think it's just a (slightly) inebriated diversion that takes me into the concept of ownership.

 

Also, if we aren't on VT politics threads to throw in to the air a mix of the banal, the serious, the innovative and the wistful then what are we here for?

[StefanAVFC]

 

 

Then again if we got rid of the concept of perpetual 'ownership' of land (is that actually the case in the UK by the way?), we might see that actually there ought not to be a difference between renting and purchasing (that would involve a different set up regarding landlords and longer, more secure tenancies obviously).

 

Ownership of land is a fine stream of discussion to go down, my guess is that the system isn't going to fundamentally change any time soon and I've got kids. So yes, the basic principle of ownership (and the Queen actually owning everything), would be addressed in my ideal world.

But that's all a bit abstract when you have a real life happening now and you want a garden and a garage.

 

 

Well, you seem to have given up the dream of absolute power rather too readily might I say.

 

On a more serious note not all 'ownership' is the freehold which allows you ponds, apple trees, gardens and garages of your wish (and even then always - Pickles not withstanding) so I don't think it's just a (slightly) inebriated diversion that takes me into the concept of ownership.

 

Also, if we aren't on VT politics threads to throw in to the air a mix of the banal, the serious, the innovative and the wistful then what are we here for?

 

 

Certainly not the glamorous women.

[chrisp65]

 

 

 

Then again if we got rid of the concept of perpetual 'ownership' of land (is that actually the case in the UK by the way?), we might see that actually there ought not to be a difference between renting and purchasing (that would involve a different set up regarding landlords and longer, more secure tenancies obviously).

 

Ownership of land is a fine stream of discussion to go down, my guess is that the system isn't going to fundamentally change any time soon and I've got kids. So yes, the basic principle of ownership (and the Queen actually owning everything), would be addressed in my ideal world.

But that's all a bit abstract when you have a real life happening now and you want a garden and a garage.

 

 

Well, you seem to have given up the dream of absolute power rather too readily might I say.

 

On a more serious note not all 'ownership' is the freehold which allows you ponds, apple trees, gardens and garages of your wish (and even then always - Pickles not withstanding) so I don't think it's just a (slightly) inebriated diversion that takes me into the concept of ownership.

 

Also, if we aren't on VT politics threads to throw in to the air a mix of the banal, the serious, the innovative and the wistful then what are we here for?

 

 

Certainly not the glamorous women.

 

 

I can do glamorous, big boy.

[chrisp65]

 

 

Then again if we got rid of the concept of perpetual 'ownership' of land (is that actually the case in the UK by the way?), we might see that actually there ought not to be a difference between renting and purchasing (that would involve a different set up regarding landlords and longer, more secure tenancies obviously).

 

Ownership of land is a fine stream of discussion to go down, my guess is that the system isn't going to fundamentally change any time soon and I've got kids. So yes, the basic principle of ownership (and the Queen actually owning everything), would be addressed in my ideal world.

But that's all a bit abstract when you have a real life happening now and you want a garden and a garage.

 

 

Well, you seem to have given up the dream of absolute power rather too readily might I say.

 

On a more serious note not all 'ownership' is the freehold which allows you ponds, apple trees, gardens and garages of your wish (and even then always - Pickles not withstanding) so I don't think it's just a (slightly) inebriated diversion that takes me into the concept of ownership.

 

Also, if we aren't on VT politics threads to throw in to the air a mix of the banal, the serious, the innovative and the wistful then what are we here for?

 

 

Still working on the absolute power, I'm convinced it would be for everyone's benefit.

 

I'd love the system to be fundamentally fixed to bring in the ideals of The Diggers, a little Luddite attitude, a bit of what William Morris was after. So, how do we solve the land ownership / family home for life thang?

[snowychap]

Don't we start with 'News from Nowhere'?

[chrisp65]

spot on

[StefanAVFC]

I'm just far too idealistic regarding my future. I'll be in my 4 bedroom house, in a headteachers job married with my 3 kids and my Schnauzer called Boris.

[snowychap]

That's not idealistic.

[StefanAVFC]

You know what I mean. It's not particularly unrealistic but it's pretty specific

[AVFCforever1991]

I'm just far too idealistic regarding my future. I'll be in my 4 bedroom house, in a headteachers job married with my 3 kids and my Schnauzer called Boris.

 

Edited June 8, 2013 by AVFCforever1991