General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Aldaniti]

Or perhaps that some people have a considerably more nuanced understanding of it than others.

Nuanced or twisted? Perhaps what I ought to have said is just how deliberately misused the word is - not misunderstood. I think those who twist the true definition know only too well the meaning of the word, but choose to twist its meaning for their own purposes. I'm sure others will know what I mean.

 

[Butts]

It's not all doom and gloom out there in the Rented Sector !!!

I rent my Flat through an Agency that does not charge any of the insidious fees that make up much of the added costs to moving in - ie References, Credit Checks, Inventory Checks etc.

If I have a problem either the Agencies Handyman or The Landlord sort them out very quickly and efficiently. My rent has not gone up since I took up the Tenancy in 2010. It is below the threshold for The Local Housing Allowance applicable in the Falkirk Area by some £60-£70 per month.

I can smoke inside which is a rarity today.

The fact the adjacent properties are "crack dens" is immaterial

 

[radamfi]

Is the regulation of the rental housing market any different in Scotland?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Nuanced or twisted? Perhaps what I ought to have said is just how deliberately misused the word is - not misunderstood. I think those who twist the true definition know only too well the meaning of the word, but choose to twist its meaning for their own purposes. I'm sure others will know what I mean.

Racism as a power structure has got 50+ years of academic discussion backing it and is commonly understood in several circles. Calling it twisted and not the "true" definition is just intentionally avoiding the point when I was the one who brought it up in the first place - perhaps you could do me the courtesy of using/understanding it my way of that's what you're bothered about? On the other hand, the "true" definition is commonly contradictory and extremely inconsistent, as it seems to revolve around anything worse than that particular person does, and seems to peter out when that person deems it not serious enough or not intentional, as though what was intended actually changes the consequences...

So no, it's not twisting it. It's telling the hard truth that racism is actually extremely common - defining it your way to avoid facing that fact doesn't change the truth of the situation.

 

[Oswyntail]

...It seems to me that these issues justify the Government intervening and regulating the market in a way that would not be justified in a more traditional 'free market' (although clearly, any intervention needs to be clearly thought out to make sure it won't do more harm than good).

Perhaps the Government should intervene in some way - just not by putting its fingers on the scale in favour of one side of the balance. The problem is not rents as such - it is the imbalance between wages and housing stock. Addressing either of those factors would be safer and more generally useful. However, typically for the Labour Party, they are suggesting populist quick fixes that will have only too easily seen consequences.

 

[Butts]

Is the regulation of the rental housing market any different in Scotland?

I'm not sure but the provisions of the lease allow for annual increases, just they have never been applied.

Perhaps some Landlords are just happy to get a regular income from a reliable Tenant rather than rocking the boat.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps the Government should intervene in some way - just not by putting its fingers on the scale in favour of one side of the balance. The problem is not rents as such - it is the imbalance between wages and housing stock. Addressing either of those factors would be safer and more generally useful. However, typically for the Labour Party, they are suggesting populist quick fixes that will have only too easily seen consequences.

The issue is more complicated than simply the imbalance between wages and housing stock. More housing stock will help, of course it will, but there are many abuses in the private rented sector that need sorting out- and fast.

The main issues for me are agency fees and security of tenure.

In most of the rest of Europe there is security of tenure: providing you pay the rent and don't trash the place, you can't get evicted and the landlord can only put the rent up by a limited amount. Needless to say, in the rest of Europe people are happy to rent.

I've just been evicted from my flat because the landlord wanted it for her kid. Her property, her rules, fair enough. But the old agency took £150 check out fee, there was still a deposit dispute, the removal agency took another £300 and the new agent took an admin fee of yet another £300. And that's before we had to find a new deposit of £1500 before we'd got the old one back- although we have now received it all, it wasn't wthout a fight. All told it's cost us the thick end of a grand and we'd only been in the flat twelve months. It was survivable for us- we're both relatively wealthy and don't have children- but £1000 is a lot of money. It's not something we can afford to pay every twelve months. But under the current system we are powerless to prevent this happening. Needless to say, we want to buy as soon as we can, although forking out a grand a year isn't helping with the saving up.

I don't see that the suggestions from Labour are that bad, although three-year tenancies could have the effect of trapping people in properties that they hate, so it depends. I don't think it would restrict supply of housing, as most people who are moving properties don't actually want to move. The big issue is agency fees, and I don't think outlawing those is an issue at all, although I fully expect the charlatans in estate agencies to try and reclaim those fees from somewhere else.

The issue at the moment is that the government do have their hands pressed on the scale- and pressed on the landlord and agent's side. Assured shorthold tenancy law was a shambles when it was introduced, and it isn't getting any less abusive with age. There is no equality of relationship and that inevitably means the weaker party- the tenant- gets exploited and ripped off; in my job I see plenty of revenge evictions, as do my friends working for the likes of Shelter. There needs to be more protection for the weaker party in this relationship.

 

[Oswyntail]

...
The issue at the moment is that the government do have their hands pressed on the scale- and pressed on the landlord and agent's side. Assured shorthold tenancy law was a shambles when it was introduced, and it isn't getting any less abusive with age. There is no equality of relationship and that inevitably means the weaker party- the tenant- gets exploited and ripped off; in my job I see plenty of revenge evictions, as do my friends working for the likes of Shelter. There needs to be more protection for the weaker party in this relationship.

I certainly agree that the abuses are there, but I don't see the proposals doing anything about them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I certainly agree that the abuses are there, but I don't see the proposals doing anything about them.

I'm a bit less skeptical, although much of it does look like grandstanding (is there an election on?)

A simnple quick win would be to outlaw agency fees for tenants, both at the start and the end of the tenancy. There's no reason why the landlord- who, after all, is the instructing party- shouldn't cough up for the costs of setting the agreement up. That works in Scotland pretty well already.

With longer agreements, I'd need to see what was actually proposed. Tying landlords into three-year deals is fine by me; tying tenants into them isn't.

 

[telstarbox]

Is the regulation of the rental housing market any different in Scotland?

Yes - you can't charge tenant fees and I think the laws regarding tenancies are different too.

 

[Aldaniti]

Racism as a power structure has got 50+ years of academic discussion backing it and is commonly understood in several circles. Calling it twisted and not the "true" definition is just intentionally avoiding the point when I was the one who brought it up in the first place - perhaps you could do me the courtesy of using/understanding it my way of that's what you're bothered about? On the other hand, the "true" definition is commonly contradictory and extremely inconsistent, as it seems to revolve around anything worse than that particular person does, and seems to peter out when that person deems it not serious enough or not intentional, as though what was intended actually changes the consequences...

So no, it's not twisting it. It's telling the hard truth that racism is actually extremely common - defining it your way to avoid facing that fact doesn't change the truth of the situation.

You can play around with words as much as you like, the word racist is misused, misunderstood and twisted to suit political agendas, but please feel free to keep going on about it.... :roll:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Perhaps the Government should intervene in some way - just not by putting its fingers on the scale in favour of one side of the balance.

I don't really buy this balance argument, because the situation is inherently not balanced. On one side, the landlord is running a business, and on the other side, the tenant is seeking to meet a basic need, for which - for most people - there is no choice about meeting that need. The tenant may theoretically have a choice of which house he rents, but he has no choice in the fact that he has to rent from someone. To that extent, it's not a voluntary transaction on one side.

I would see this idea of guaranteeing security of tenure and limiting rent rises not as unfair interference but as basic consumer protection and good practices. Once a tenant is living in a house, it's very difficult and very expensive for that tenant to move (think, for example, of a family who might face having to change their children's schools, pay thousands in removal fees, etc. if forced to move). For practical purposes, most tenants are therefore in a situation where they are effectively locked in to their tenancy, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the landlord to give them some security of tenure and protection from arbitrary rent rises. (And by the way, I'm writing this as a landlord).

After all, there are many other industries for which the Government imposes somewhat analogous restrictions on how businesses can behave, in the interests of consumer protection. For example, water companies have their charges regulated, all utility companies face severe restrictions on the circumstances under which they can decline to serve a household. Rail companies have fares regulated. I don't offhand see many complaints that this is unfair to those companies. In principle, why should housing - which is arguably an even more essential service - be any different?

The only significant difference I can see is that landlords are, on the whole, much smaller businesses. Many are people who have one extra home that they let out (that's my situation) - and so they are obviously far more vulnerable than - say - organizations like water companies. That certainly has the practical effect of limiting how much regulation you can sustain, but I don't think that negates the need to conduct your business in a way that's fair to your customers, and for the Government to regulate that in some manner.

The problem is not rents as such - it is the imbalance between wages and housing stock. Addressing either of those factors would be safer and more generally useful. However, typically for the Labour Party, they are suggesting populist quick fixes that will have only too easily seen consequences.

Well here the devil is in the detail. None of us know exactly how this policy will be implemented if Labour comes to power. It is of course perfectly possible that well-meaning regulation could be disastrous if implemented badly. (Arctic Troll gave an example: 3 year contracts would be silly if that meant the tenant couldn't move out even if they wanted to). But as a general principle, what Labour are proposing seems fair to me. Others people here have suggested that, far from populist measures that can't work, the concept of limiting rent rises and providing security of tenure merely brings the UK into line with much of the rest of Europe, where this doesn't seem to cause problems. That's my impression too (though my knowledge of that is a bit hazy so I could be mistaken).

I do by the way agree that lack of housing is also a fundamental problem. If that was solved (which requires a massive house-building program and will take years), then the problems tenants face would be considerably eased.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The only significant difference I can see is that landlords are, on the whole, much smaller businesses. Many are people who have one extra home that they let out (that's my situation) - and so they are obviously far more vulnerable than - say - organizations like water companies.

I would like to see how true that actually is. Certainly out of the 3 different landlords I have rented from while living in Bath (for uni and now for work), two of them rent out multiple properties and that is their "main job" so to speak, and the other one rents out multiple properties but still has a day job.

 

[telstarbox]

Focus of the campaign seems to be tax today - do you personally find your level of taxation is fair or too high/too low?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Focus of the campaign seems to be tax today - do you personally find your level of taxation is fair or too high/too low?

Of course, asked that question in isolation the vast majority of people will say it is too high.
However when you then start to ask people about the services that taxation helps support (NHS, state education, roads, rubbish / recycling collections etc etc etc) people usually start to become a bit less agreeable to the idea of cutting taxes all over the place!

 

[ainsworth74]

About the only thing I want to say changed in terms of tax is to roll National Insurance into Income Tax rather than continue to pretend that your NI pays for things like Contributory benefits and your State Pension. Obviously it does go towards those things but then so does Income Tax in the same way that I'm sure some NI goes towards funding transport as NI isn't ring-fenced for one purpose.

In terms of rates of Income Tax I think it's reasonably fair. I wouldn't be opposed to the additional rate going up a few percent but I think the basic rate of 20% and higher rate of 40% is reasonable.

 

[northwichcat]

About the only thing I want to say changed in terms of tax is to roll National Insurance into Income Tax rather than continue to pretend that your NI pays for things like Contributory benefits and your State Pension. Obviously it does go towards those things but then so does Income Tax in the same way that I'm sure some NI goes towards funding transport as NI isn't ring-fenced for one purpose.

Indeed. One thing the Coalition changed was to block benefits to people who had over a certain amount in savings if they are out of work. It doesn't matter if those savings are 10 years worth of savings from a low to medium income job intended as a deposit for your first house, or £50,000 spare someone has after they've just upgraded to a better house and better car, the government expects you to use those savings to live on and not rely on a pay-out from your NI contributions.

In terms of rates of Income Tax I think it's reasonably fair. I wouldn't be opposed to the additional rate going up a few percent but I think the basic rate of 20% and higher rate of 40% is reasonable.

I'd be interested to see how exactly the proposed reintroduction of the 10% rate proposed by Labour would work. They haven't given a lower and upper threshold for it.

At the last election the thing I didn't see the point of was a considerable number of people paying income tax and then claiming an income tax refund in the form of Tax Credits. However, with the Coalition implementing the Lib Dem proposal to raise the tax free allowance from income I imagine the number of instances of that happening have significantly decreased.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However when you then start to ask people about the services that taxation helps support (NHS, state education, roads, rubbish / recycling collections etc etc etc) people usually start to become a bit less agreeable to the idea of cutting taxes all over the place!

One thing that's happened in Cheshire East is the council have claimed council tax has been frozen.

However, what's actually happened is they've withdrawn funding for certain services like public toilets and markets, which have then been transferred to town councils and then town councils have imposed a council tax increase to keep those services.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You can play around with words as much as you like, the word racist is misused, misunderstood and twisted to suit political agendas, but please feel free to keep going on about it.... :roll:

It's not playing around with words. It's bringing stuff to the table that you personally don't like. Frankly, I don't care, and will keep using it that way because it's a demonstrably better definition.

Calling it misused because it shows that racism is widespread is also hopelessly insulting to those who suffer from it, by the way, but that's a side issue.

 

[Aldaniti]

Focus of the campaign seems to be tax today - do you personally find your level of taxation is fair or too high/too low?

To be perfectly honest, I don't mind paying my taxes as long as the rates are fair - and am happy to keep an open mind on the general level of taxation. What I would actually say is that I object to the lack of effective public sector spending, poor value for money and general waste that taxpayers (sorry, hardworking taxpayers - have to pay for. Clearly, if you've served your time in the armed forces for example, had limbs blown off and cannot work, by definition of todays politicians you are no longer part of the hardworking society. It makes me as mad as hell every time I hear some oily politician speak the word, but I digress...). For example, my local council has made some pretty serious cuts which have affected some of those who really struggle day-to-day, but at the same time they continue to publish a glossy, quarterly magazine for residents - although, admittedly, it is no longer delivered to your door. I find that obscene., particularly from a Labour council. At national level, again, some of those who really need support in this country - those who used to be supported by Remploy for example - have been cut adrift whilst we continue to expand the foreign aid budget. It's this sort of nonsense that gives some people the hump, not necessarily the general level of taxation. If we had superb levels and quality of public services, I guess we'd all be happy with the amount of tax we pay. But we don't which is part - just part - of the reason why next Thursday I'll be voting for 'None of the Above'.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course, asked that question in isolation the vast majority of people will say it is too high.
However when you then start to ask people about the services that taxation helps support (NHS, state education, roads, rubbish / recycling collections etc etc etc) people usually start to become a bit less agreeable to the idea of cutting taxes all over the place!

Agreed. Personally I think the emphasis from all parties on refusing to countenance raising income tax rates is counter-productive. In the end, the Government needs to get revenue from somewhere to pay for all the services that make our prosperity possible and keep the UK as a reasonably civilized and pleasant place to live in, and income tax is overall the fairest way to get that money. The constant emphasis on reducing headline income tax rates just means Governments have to keep looking for other ways to raise revenue, which are often much less fair.

And on this topic. This latest idea from the Conservatives for a law to prevent income tax rises for 5 years strikes me as the silliest election gimmick I've heard for a long time! They want to spend Parliamentary time and resources passing a law to make themselves do something that they'd presumably do anyway if they were in Government, and which could of course be repealed if they changed their minds?!? And this from the Party that is supposedly against unnecessary bureaucracy?

 

[radamfi]

Indeed. One thing the Coalition changed was to block benefits to people who had over a certain amount in savings if they are out of work. It doesn't matter if those savings are 10 years worth of savings from a low to medium income job intended as a deposit for your first house, or £50,000 spare someone has after they've just upgraded to a better house and better car, the government expects you to use those savings to live on and not rely on a pay-out from your NI contributions.

Well you still get JSA for 6 months but that's peanuts. I don't think people in the UK realise how poor unemployment benefits are in the UK compared to elsewhere in Europe. Elsewhere you can expect to get a large proportion of your previous salary for a year or more.

If we did roll NI into general taxation, what would happen to employers' NI?

 

[Mojo]

If we did roll NI into general taxation, what would happen to employers' NI?

There are also other factors applicable to NI that would have to be implemented into the Income tax system should the two be merged, such as reduced rates for members of contracted-out pension schemes and on earnings over £815 per week.

 

[northwichcat]

Well you still get JSA for 6 months but that's peanuts.

Does that only apply if you're in an area where Universal Credit hasn't been introduced? I thought if you have between £6,000 and £16,000 in savings you get reduced rate benefits and if it's over £16,000 you don't get a penny.

 

[ainsworth74]

Does that only apply if you're in an area where Universal Credit hasn't been introduced? I thought if you have between £6,000 and £16,000 in savings you get reduced rate benefits and if it's over £16,000 you don't get a penny.

Outside of Univseral Credit areas you can claim either Contribution Based JSA (cb-JSA) or Income Based JSA (ib-JSA) or cb-JSA with a top up of ib-JSA (but I won't go into that right now).

If you meet the contribution conditions for cb-JSA you can receive it for six months and it takes account of only your personal income and disregards savings of any amount. So you could have £20,000 of savings and get full cb-JSA. This benefit still exists under Universal Credit where it'll be counted as income for the purposes of calculating potential Universal Credit entitlement.

ib-JSA takes account of your income and the income of your partner (if applicable) and also savings. Anything less than £6,000 is disregarded in full anything between £6,000 and £16,000 causes some money to be taken off your ib-JSA payment (you lose £1 for every £250 over £6,000) and over £16,000 will cause you to not receive any money. There is no time limit on how long you can claim this benefit so for many people who have been in work for years they'll start on cb-JSA for six months and then move over to ib-JSA after that. This benefit has now become part of Universal Credit.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the word racist is misused, misunderstood and twisted to suit political agendas, but please feel free to keep going on about it.... :roll:

If we're wanting to play semantics, then yes, I would agree. The word racist is often used as a synonym for xenophobic, but racism and xenophobia are not technically quite the same thing.

FWIW I think much of grass roots UKIP support is racist: they have an unhealthy obsession with what "Muslims" (which they use as a synonym for "Asian") get up to, and much of UKIP's support has come from the BNP or worse (Nigel Farage's election agent in the EU elections used to be in the National Front). There's a very fine line between xenophobia and outright racism, but the party top brass are clever enough to stay just the right side of it.

Every time you go on Twitter you see the UKIP lot prattling on about Rotherham, as though no white man has ever sexually abused a child. That's clearly about their own racism rather than the fate of those children. It's disgraceful.

Many people who say "racism is overused/misused" also go to great lengths to insist that groups like Irish travellers and gypsies are not races, when the law says they are. So naturally they think "racism" is overused, because they equate race with skin pigmentation.

 

[Johnuk123]

Proof if ever it was needed of the defective voting system we have.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Does that only apply if you're in an area where Universal Credit hasn't been introduced? I thought if you have between £6,000 and £16,000 in savings you get reduced rate benefits and if it's over £16,000 you don't get a penny.

Just to add to Greenback's good explanation, there is a "deemed income" from savings which is taken into account when calculating benefits. This is the same for both Universal Credit and some current income-related benefits such as income-related JSA and income support.

Tax credits don't take savings into account though, so people with a lot of savings will lose out under Universal Credit. Generally, though, UC is a good idea with a good aim, however that idea and aim has become lost as the current government try to hide austerity cuts in the change of system.

To add to johnuk123's post, that is indeed true, and is true for all minority parties and not just UKIP. It is something that should be changed; I don't like UKIP but if enough people vote for them then they should be represented. My preference remains STV with some form of PR.

Which is why it is a shame that so many people voted against electoral reform because they didn't like Nick Clegg.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

The EU is the only proportional voting chance I get and it makes more sense than First Past The Post. Arctic Troll the Alternative Vote is used for Crime Commissioners elections and in Humberside it recounted the extremist parties until Labour lost despite getting the most support. That's why we voted against, not Clegg.

But today UKIP's Victoria Ayling candidate MP for Grimsby made a funny mistake in her leaflet. She said:

"As a local man I know what a dreadful train service it can be. I will push for investment to upgrade our line and sort out Network Rail."

For one she isn't local, being a Lincolnshire councillor and lives in Boston! And she isn't a man either (I think!). Is she saying she'll upgrade Grimsby or Boston lines?? And how will she "sort out" Network Rail?

 

[ainsworth74]

Just to add to Greenback's good explanation

Greenback? Did my name get changed without me noticing

there is a "deemed income" from savings which is taken into account when calculating benefits. This is the same for both Universal Credit and some current income-related benefits such as income-related JSA and income support.

Tax credits don't take savings into account though, so people with a lot of savings will lose out under Universal Credit.

Well you have notional income if you have over £6,000 of savings with ib-JSA or IS but with Tax Credits you take account of actual income from savings rather than having a notional income from them. At least that's what my recollection is I don't have access to any books or AdviserNet at the moment to check that.

 

[Johnuk123]

For one she isn't local, being a Lincolnshire councillor and lives in Boston! And she isn't a man either (I think!). Is she saying she'll upgrade Grimsby or Boston lines?? And how will she "sort out" Network Rail?

Is she one of then non-binaries ?