The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[DaveShoelace]

The current post-Paris situation is the scariest for me, or at least, I am the most angry and engrossed in it. I was 21 when 9/11 happened and it was just surreal, I was on holiday when 7/7 happened and felt detached to that. I even (very slightly) knew one of the Bali bomb victims (though not well enough that I remember her name unfortunately).

So I imagine what I am currently feeling is a mix of a recency bias, plus a case of I'm more interested in politics, and have more access to news than when the other events happened.

[nirvana]

Question of the day

In light of the recent attacks in Paris and the aftermath, is this the most scared you have ever been for your safety in a world war context? I don't mean if you have actually been in war or another dangerous situation, specifically whether you are scared that the world as you know it could be on the brink of destruction?

Can you remember how you felt after 9/11 or 7/7? Or the Falklands? (Or the Boer War for Tikay)

Not at all.  The Cold War was much scarier, I grew up believing there was a real chance of nuclear war. 

Yep agree, as a teenager in the 70s the world seemed pretty bleak and nuclear war was a genuine concern. None of the threats since seem very scary to me although I suppose there's marginally more chance I may get damaged in a terrorist incident rather than getting nuked back then

[The Camel]

Big change - Stamp duty 3 percent higher on second homes and buy to let -

very centrist, going for labour centre left territory

apprenticeship levy + change to stamp duty gives you 4 billion, that nearly covers the tax credits U-turn

 

Good start.

Now make it 30% and then double it for good measure.

[DaveShoelace]

Big change - Stamp duty 3 percent higher on second homes and buy to let -

very centrist, going for labour centre left territory

apprenticeship levy + change to stamp duty gives you 4 billion, that nearly covers the tax credits U-turn

 

Good start.

Now make it 30% and then double it for good measure.

I've not really thought about it, and I imagine I'll agree with you when you tell me, but why is this so pleasing to you? Why do you think second homes and buy to lets should foot more of a stamp duty bill?

[arbboy]

Will make hardly any difference at all.  Outside of London the vast majority of buy to let properties would struggle to even hit the Stamp Duty limits anyway.  Most BTL's are small apartments/terraced houses which up North wouldn't even get close to the threshold.  Therefore a 3% increase in zero is zero.

[MintTrav]

picture the scene...

"And then I thought I'd quote from Mao."

"really?"

"yes, I'll get the little red book out in the house and quote from it"

"fantastic, absolutely no way that will go down badly"

Nice shot from Osborne: "Oh look! It's his personal signed copy."

[TightEnd]

because they aren't bought to live in and distort the housing market.

what i think might happen is it is transferred through to rent levels.

a left wing response may be that these investments are made for greed alone (especially say in london where homes are bought and not even rented out)

[TightEnd]

from the west wing

[arbboy]

because they aren't bought to live in and distort the housing market.

what i think might happen is it is transferred through to rent levels.

a left wing response may be that these investments are made for greed alone (especially say in london where homes are bought and not even rented out)

When they say 3% higher do they mean 2% stamp duty on houses £125k-£250k becomes 5% stamp duty or a 3% increase on 2% (ie 2.06%).  If it is the former than buying a £200k buy to let will see the stamp duty bill increase from £1500 to £3750.

[DaveShoelace]

because they aren't bought to live in and distort the housing market.

what i think might happen is it is transferred through to rent levels.

a left wing response may be that these investments are made for greed alone (especially say in london where homes are bought and not even rented out)

When they say 3% higher do they mean 2% stamp duty on houses £125k-£250 becomes 5% stamp duty or a 3% increase on 2% (ie 2.06%)

Surely it is the first one

[TightEnd]

because they aren't bought to live in and distort the housing market.

what i think might happen is it is transferred through to rent levels.

a left wing response may be that these investments are made for greed alone (especially say in london where homes are bought and not even rented out)

When they say 3% higher do they mean 2% stamp duty on houses £125k-£250 becomes 5% stamp duty or a 3% increase on 2% (ie 2.06%)

i dont know, sure it will be in the news reports somewhere. would guess 5%

[Doobs]

Will make hardly any difference at all.  Outside of London the vast majority of buy to let properties would struggle to even hit the Stamp Duty limits anyway.  Most BTL's are small apartments/terraced houses which up North wouldn't even get close to the threshold.  Therefore a 3% increase in zero is zero.

Am sure it is additional and not a multiple, so 0% is now 3%

[arbboy]

ok.  If it wasn't a multiple and 0% stayed at 0% imagine the bubble that would create around the £125k price band.  Wouldn't be many houses being sold being £125k and £130k.

[TightEnd]

a few months ago i mentioned that Osborne may look to move to the centre to take the ground vacated by labour and freeze them out in electoral terms..it being the middle floating voter that you need to win

one commentator has just said the following

"The Corbyn paradox - feel-good, centrist spending plan with soft-austerity - bonkers Labour allows Tories to behave like sensible Labour"

[TightEnd]

With Labour’s Shadow Chancellor quoting Mao, where will the real opposition to this Spending Review come from? http://bit.ly/1NsHXxU

(feel free to put other links up, trying to find stuff from across the spectrum but i don't see much hard left stuff to counter-balance)