Who Will Be The Next Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

What about a government who's policy it is to do nothing and let the free market (to the extent there is such a thing) determine the outcome.

[Agelastus]

I thought he said he would not seek another term.

And the difference is?

Unless he's changed his mind (and he hasn't said anything about doing so) he'll almost certainly resign a minimum of 18 months before the next election. Hence the positioning being done by May and Osborne to try and get the jump on Johnson (who is still tied down as the Mayor of London so can't really make his mark in Parliament or Cabinet for a few more months.)

[Admiral Yi]

And the difference is?

Unless he's changed his mind (and he hasn't said anything about doing so) he'll almost certainly resign a minimum of 18 months before the next election. Hence the positioning being done by May and Osborne to try and get the jump on Johnson (who is still tied down as the Mayor of London so can't really make his mark in Parliament or Cabinet for a few more months.)

I see a difference because I don't see why he has to resign as PM 18 months before the election.  What would prevent him from continuing to serve as PM while the pretenders cut each others throats in preparation for the election?

[MadImmortalMan]

So the successor can run as the incumbent I suppose.

[crazy canuck]

I thought he said he would not seek another term.

And the difference is?

Unless he's changed his mind (and he hasn't said anything about doing so) he'll almost certainly resign a minimum of 18 months before the next election. Hence the positioning being done by May and Osborne to try and get the jump on Johnson (who is still tied down as the Mayor of London so can't really make his mark in Parliament or Cabinet for a few more months.)

I think Yi is still not appreciating the difference between a Parliamentary system and the American system.   Americans are used to people campaigning to be the next president well before the sitting president's term is over.  In a Parliamentary system the PM needs to step down well in advance of the next election to allow the new leader to bring the party into the next election.

Yi, it would be disastrous for a PM, or any leader, to step down just before an election.   

[Hamilcar]

You know, I'd pay money for a feed of PMQs of Boris vs Corbyn. 

[Syt]

Improving housing by easing building permit laws is what they seem to be planning, and easing the pressure on the housing market can be a key - I am earning the national average and everything would be pretty rosy price-wise if I wasn't burning an insane portion of my income on renting a ridicoulous "apartment".

I think this is going to be the same in most big cities. I have a net income of over 10% above the Austrian median, yet I pay 40% of my net income for rent and utilities (not counting internet). And there's little difference between being in a cheaper, high-immigrant district of town or where I'm now (in fact, apartments in my area tend to be MUCH more expensive than the price I pay). The more affordable option would be to go to the fringes of the city, or to the countryside, but then my commute would easily double or triple.

[Brazen]

I'd love it to be BoJo, despite a few disappointments such as affordable housing I think he's done a bang-up job as London Mayor. Sadly it's more likely to be old slappable smug-face Osbourne.

[Tamas]

So what is everyone thinking on the "affordable buys" vs. "affordable rents"

FYI the government is saying they will encourage investment by removing the requirement of building council housing flats when building regular ones, and introducing a similar requirement to sell X number of new flats on a reduced rate for first-time buyers.

I am not sure how it will work out but I approve the sentiment of trying to turn as much renters into owners as possible. If done on a big enough scale it should be felt on the reduction of rent prices, since whoever is replacing their rent payments with mortgage payments to move into a new flat/house is off the renting market, reducing demand. A demand that is frankly absolutely ridicoulous at the moment, and I am not talking about London proper either, but it's commuter zone.

And even if buy-to-rent will not be contained too much, the easing of new buildings shall at the very least increase the supply, even if it doesn't touches demand.

Not to mention the moral standpoint: concentrating on cheap unbuyable homes and thus preventing positive change in the market might be better on the short term for the poorest but it helps conserving poverty, preventing the chance to climb out of it.

[Syt]

Not sure what to think of it - comparison with Vienna is a bit difficult, because over the past decade or two the property prices have increased much faster than the rent prices.

While building of public housing was stopped in 2005 (with a few small projects now starting again), the city offers subsidies for "Genossenschaft" projects - a society starts a new apartment complex, and you can buy yourself in for 30-50k - this is basically a down payment on rent for the next ten or fifteen years, so you pay only a small rent during that time (if you leave the apartment early, you get part of the money back). After that period you have the opportunity to buy the apartment for a relatively low price. And obviously there's income limits you must be under to get subsidies from the city for this. I'm over the limit.

It's a very popular model for young families.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think that the demand to live in London may make any supply-side improvements nugatory in their effects on rent levels, though it will have the benefit of making the place even more of a money-making machine since it would permit a larger population 

[Josquius]

Its more council houses that the country really needs.
That's not what we're getting though, its inefficient use of money getting private companies to build and rent or sell flats/houses.
In that case houses to buy seem the better option. Less potential for public money to be funnelled into private hands in the long term.

[Brazen]

The flat next to mine is owned by a private landlord that sub-lets to the council. The woman and her daughter there basically get to live in the same accommodation as me but vastly subsidised and were there for years even before I moved in. The daughter must be pushing 20 now, and I don't think the mother will ever let her leave home!

[Tamas]

The flat next to mine is owned by a private landlord that sub-lets to the council. The woman and her daughter there basically get to live in the same accommodation as me but vastly subsidised and were there for years even before I moved in. The daughter must be pushing 20 now, and I don't think the mother will ever let her leave home!

It does seem a bit weird sometimes. I mean I could get the rent subsidy rules wrong but it does seem to me that if the flat you live in is basically impossible to sustain on your salary level, the council will pay most of it. If you are like me, who can rent it on your own due to your income level, even if making sacrificies for doing so, you are on your own.

Not that I want welfare, but this doesn't seem entirely fair.

[MadImmortalMan]

Its more council houses that the country really needs.
That's not what we're getting though, its inefficient use of money getting private companies to build and rent or sell flats/houses.
In that case houses to buy seem the better option. Less potential for public money to be funnelled into private hands in the long term.

I think you may have it in reverse. Council housing is probably one of the main causes of the problem.

Housing will be built for the customers in the market, and council housing sucks all the low-income customers out of the market, leaving the building to be done for whoever is left.

It'd be much better to create a way for low-income customers to be part of the market, so there is demand to build for them.