news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

None of them actually want anyone else in particular to lead into the GE. He's the sacrificial lamb for losing the GE. They're just fighting for who gets control of the party after that.

Yeah that's true.

[mattiloy]

 

8 hours ago, stuie said:

This started because I said I thought property was a better option than a stocks related pension so I don't know where you got the altruistic reasons from - what started as a negative equity accident is now my route to a more wealthy retirement but I'm fully aware of my social responsibility and I'm not a leech. 

Market rental value is now about £300 p/m more than LHA pays in the area so I could re-let the property if I wish to, but I'm happy knowing I'm providing a family with a nice home and building my 'pension' pot at the same time. 

If that makes me a bad person, I don't really care. 

Interested in how much in % the value has gone up if you’d guess?

Even given strong performance of house prices in some parts of the uk in the last 20 years, surely sticking it in global funds would have performed at least as well if not better? (after paying interest on your loan and other associated costs) and without the admin and everybody thinking you’re evil. Plus the fact that you now have all your dough in one illiquid asset at a time when property prices have fallen off a cliff, with the prospect of an incoming Labour party scratching around for ways to boost the coffers without increasing taxes on workers (cc capital gains, dividends, stamp duty). Those index funds not looking so bad now are they Mr Monopoly?

[Guest]

This is a completely normal thing for a country to do.

[Ryan1984]

8 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah that's true.

The fascinating/troubling thing is which way they go once they boot him out… Will they fully embrace the Far Right/bring in Farage/settle for someone ‘safer’ and more moderate like Mourdant (their base were impressed she held a sword for four hours at the Coronation)?

Saw about 10 minutes of Question Time and the Brexiteers were back out in full force in the audience…

[steviewevie]

Anyone see this? Ozanne?!

 

[Paul ™]

40 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Anyone see this? Ozanne?!

 

Probably can't respond as his arm will be still sore 😉

[lost]

1 hour ago, Ryan1984 said:

The fascinating/troubling thing is which way they go once they boot him out… Will they fully embrace the Far Right/bring in Farage/settle for someone ‘safer’ and more moderate like Mourdant (their base were impressed she held a sword for four hours at the Coronation)?

According to that poll the telegraph ran where reform are going to decimate the Tories. Mourdant was one of those losing her seat.

On the FPTP thing. Farage got nearly 4 million votes in 2015 and 1 seat. Also worth pointing out he sat in the group to the left of the identity grouping of Lega, AfD and National Rally. Looking at places like France and Germany we could move futher to the right than Farage if we change the voting system.

[steviewevie]

2 hours ago, Ryan1984 said:

The fascinating/troubling thing is which way they go once they boot him out… Will they fully embrace the Far Right/bring in Farage/settle for someone ‘safer’ and more moderate like Mourdant (their base were impressed she held a sword for four hours at the Coronation)?

Saw about 10 minutes of Question Time and the Brexiteers were back out in full force in the audience…

I think it will be Badenoch...she's kind of trying to appeal to the right and moderates, a bright, pragmatic right wing female which are all the rage across europe at the moment. It will likely be someone from the right (Badenoch) and someone from the left/centre (Mordaunt/Cleverly) as last two, but membership have final say and they seem fairly right wing..so.

And normally I would think that is electoral suicide, you can only win from the centre...but the right are winning all over the place at moment, and will be even more emboldened if Trump is back in the whitehouse. So, it is not impossible to see a scenario where Labour wins with a small/medium majority, they do some spending/reform on public services but progress is slow, some taxes go up, they start investing in green tech and energy, but by next election things have not really improved in people's lives yet, and tories come along promising to cut taxes. reduce migration, leave the ECHR and bin net zero, and then win.

[Neil]

12 hours ago, Ozanne said:

This is a completely normal thing for a country to do.

Not normal for UK politicians to plan ahead 

[Crazyfool01]

13 hours ago, Ozanne said:

This is a completely normal thing for a country to do.

Tory donor involved somewhere …. 

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

I think it will be Badenoch...she's kind of trying to appeal to the right and moderates, a bright, pragmatic right wing female which are all the rage across europe at the moment. It will likely be someone from the right (Badenoch) and someone from the left/centre (Mordaunt/Cleverly) as last two, but membership have final say and they seem fairly right wing..so.

And normally I would think that is electoral suicide, you can only win from the centre...but the right are winning all over the place at moment, and will be even more emboldened if Trump is back in the whitehouse. So, it is not impossible to see a scenario where Labour wins with a small/medium majority, they do some spending/reform on public services but progress is slow, some taxes go up, they start investing in green tech and energy, but by next election things have not really improved in people's lives yet, and tories come along promising to cut taxes. reduce migration, leave the ECHR and bin net zero, and then win.

I'm not so sure. I think the Tories are going to let Sunak take the fall for this GE, then the question is are they aiming for 2029 or 2032-34? If you think of the Hague/IDS/Howard era from before Cameron, the Tories will be shifting around trying to get a person they want in, before they settle on someone more electable. I think Badenoch will only make a token effort in the next leadership bid and eye up being the 2nd/3rd leader to try and do the right-wing thing. I can't see her making a serious campaign effort before 2027.

[cellar]

15 hours ago, mattiloy said:

 

Interested in how much in % the value has gone up if you’d guess?

Even given strong performance of house prices in some parts of the uk in the last 20 years, surely sticking it in global funds would have performed at least as well if not better? (after paying interest on your loan and other associated costs) and without the admin and everybody thinking you’re evil. Plus the fact that you now have all your dough in one illiquid asset at a time when property prices have fallen off a cliff, with the prospect of an incoming Labour party scratching around for ways to boost the coffers without increasing taxes on workers (cc capital gains, dividends, stamp duty). Those index funds not looking so bad now are they Mr Monopoly?

I think he said property value was £90k when bought, and £240/£260k now. 

But if the deposit (£20k) was all he ever paid himself, then it is a better ROI than you'd get from any fund that I can think of, even with the cost of the loan (I assume about £25k on average over the last 20 years). 

But that is kind of the sh*tty part of BTL, and what sets it apart from other types of investments, is that you're using someone else's money to invest for you. Even if that £90k house suddenly dropped to £40k, and the above assumption is true, its still 100% profit in real terms for the landlord, and the renters money has absorbed the £50k shock. (Actually realised this isn't true as forgot to factor in the cost of the loan - but still, its only a £5k loss compared to what would have been a £75k loss).

Edited January 19 by cellar
Fixing maths

[steviewevie]

24 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm not so sure. I think the Tories are going to let Sunak take the fall for this GE, then the question is are they aiming for 2029 or 2032-34? If you think of the Hague/IDS/Howard era from before Cameron, the Tories will be shifting around trying to get a person they want in, before they settle on someone more electable. I think Badenoch will only make a token effort in the next leadership bid and eye up being the 2nd/3rd leader to try and do the right-wing thing. I can't see her making a serious campaign effort before 2027.

I guess a lot will depend on how badly they lose by.

[kaosmark2]

16 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I guess a lot will depend on how badly they lose by.

Has there been any poll or indication anywhere they'll be able to hold 200+ seats? I haven't seen one in the last year saying that.

[fraybentos1]

24 minutes ago, cellar said:

But that is kind of the sh*tty part of BTL, and what sets it apart from other types of investments, is that you're using someone else's money to invest for you.

Exactly my point really.

Also the self-righteousness of ‘I’m providing a home for vulnerable people’ really grates on me. As if he built the home himself. When in reality and landlord is just contributing to a society where average joes struggle to buy average houses. 

[lost]

25 minutes ago, cellar said:

 

But if the deposit (£20k) was all he ever paid himself, then it is a better ROI than you'd get from any fund that I can think of, even with the cost of the loan (I assume about £25k on average over the last 20 years).

Yes thats the difference. Most people don't use leverage when buying shares but are comfortable doing it when buying property.

Definitely not a one way bet though. I think it was Feral who used to post on here who said a member of her family had a number of BTL's in a mining town and when the mine closed lost the whole portfollio to the bank after a margin call whilst in negative equity.

[Crazyfool01]

On 2/17/2021 at 12:39 PM, Haan said:

I love Corbyn, but if Starmer wins with these pledges we will be in a decent position

from page 2 of this thread .... how many are relevant now ? 🙂 reading back is quite interesting 🙂 

[fraybentos1]

47 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

from page 2 of this thread .... how many are relevant now ? 🙂 reading back is quite interesting 🙂 

Most watered down or abandoned unfortunately.

at a glance :

1) income tax increase abandoned for high earners, in fact I think reeves was talking about cuts today 

2)tbc

3)watered down more every time they mention it 

4)tbc, doubt it tho 

5)abandoned essentially 

6)not sure 

7) don’t think anyone could claim starmer was passionately on the side of workers during recent strikes 

8)tbc but highly doubt it. No way they’re abolishing the House of Lords 

9) who knows

10)tbf he’s 20 points ahead and clearly worked hard on the anti semitism stuff 

Edited January 19 by kaosmark2

[Crazyfool01]

4 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Most watered down or abandoned unfortunately. Obv ozanne will be here soon to gaslight us and say that’s not the case but at a glance :

1) income tax increase abandoned for high earners, in fact I think reeves was talking about cuts today 

2)tbc

3)watered down more every time they mention it 

4)tbc, doubt it tho 

5)abandoned essentially 

6)not sure 

7) don’t think anyone could claim starmer was passionately on the side of workers during recent strikes 

8)tbc but highly doubt it. No way they’re abolishing the House of Lords 

9) who knows

10)tbf he’s 20 points ahead and clearly worked hard on the anti semitism stuff 

5 is massive for me . The mess we have is largely down to privatisation and the creaming off of profits , pubic ownership would be much better , not even sure it's a vote loser tbh . guess it all costs money though 

[stuie]

1 hour ago, cellar said:

I think he said property value was £90k when bought, and £240/£260k now. 

But if the deposit (£20k) was all he ever paid himself, then it is a better ROI than you'd get from any fund that I can think of, even with the cost of the loan (I assume about £25k on average over the last 20 years). 

But that is kind of the sh*tty part of BTL, and what sets it apart from other types of investments, is that you're using someone else's money to invest for you. Even if that £90k house suddenly dropped to £40k, and the above assumption is true, its still 100% profit in real terms for the landlord, and the renters money has absorbed the £50k shock. (Actually realised this isn't true as forgot to factor in the cost of the loan - but still, its only a £5k loss compared to what would have been a £75k loss).

Yes that’s all about right.  Worth stating again though this wasn’t actually BTL at first, it was a result of getting trapped in negative equity and not being able to live there anymore. Rent has always covered the cost of borrowing and I’ve covered everything else - new roof, boiler, kitchen, bathroom, regular w&t. 

It turned good, prices in the area not dropped (yet) and benefit now from a new parkway station and high speed taking an hour into St. Pancras. 

I have no intention of doing it again, it just happened. 

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, Crazyfool01 said:

5 is massive for me . The mess we have is largely down to privatisation and the creaming off of profits , pubic ownership would be much better , not even sure it's a vote loser tbh . guess it all costs money though 

The main thing about public ownership is how you solve the problem of not having the state seize property, but also not having the state bear the cost of buying it back for more money in a worse state than when it was sold? Then, following whatever happens with that, the public will expect an immediate upturn in quality that just isn't realistic or possible.

While I fully agree that a significant number of services should be renationalised, it's incredibly hard to do so politically without a lot of expenses and a lot of blame. And given the state of the country's finances and the number of people living below and near the poverty line I'm not even sure it should be an immediate priority for a Labour government.

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The main thing about public ownership is how you solve the problem of not having the state seize property, but also not having the state bear the cost of buying it back for more money in a worse state than when it was sold? Then, following whatever happens with that, the public will expect an immediate upturn in quality that just isn't realistic or possible.

While I fully agree that a significant number of services should be renationalised, it's incredibly hard to do so politically without a lot of expenses and a lot of blame. And given the state of the country's finances and the number of people living below and near the poverty line I'm not even sure it should be an immediate priority for a Labour government.

fair comment , would at least like a start . Railways would be the most sensible to me as we seem to be constantly renewing licences anyway . 

[fred quimby]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

 

I have no intention of doing it again, it just happened. 

The Forest Gump of property management 😉

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Crazyfool01 said:

5 is massive for me . The mess we have is largely down to privatisation and the creaming off of profits , pubic ownership would be much better , not even sure it's a vote loser tbh . guess it all costs money though 

Public ownership fails Cos Govt creams off investment spending to use the money for other spending. The money available is less than with private owners creaming the profits.