Tory manifesto proposes measures to boost house prices

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

We do they are called the local councilors, I think it is on about stopping them just passing things through for self interest and not letting the locals know.
I can't see the problem with local tax payers having more of a say on how their funds are spent.
We have had years of government telling us how well they can spend our money better than us, why not challenge it to see if it is true?

Also on the schools they can't change the boundrys so how can they stop disadvantage kids?

This has been a bit of an issue in our Lib Dem stronghold area.

I can't see many ways round it. You can't even prevent development for terms in office, even if we wanted to, as it would in very many cases prevent business development.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

We do they are called the local councilors, I think it is on about stopping them just passing things through for self interest and not letting the locals know.
I can't see the problem with local tax payers having more of a say on how their funds are spent.
We have had years of government telling us how well they can spend our money better than us, why not challenge it to see if it is true?

Also on the schools they can't change the boundrys so how can they stop disadvantage kids?

as far as i understand it is actually gives less power to locals to object to plans for a new school or whatever. under the tories proposals groups of 'locals' (parents or whatever or possibly private charities or private interests) will put requests for new schools straight to central government so bypassing the local planning proceedures and the ability of local people to put in objections. so it is giving power to one set of locals and taking away from another.

robin_banks

Really2 wrote: »

Is it not a more realistic and cheaper option for single people? (I don't know but obviously single people must find it hard to compete against dual incomes)

Mortgage plus rent plus (if applicable) service charge will often exceed a 90% mortgage for the same property.

They still need to be approved by the HA, and there are numerous costs to be factored in.

HA's know this full well, it's a nice earner for them. They get rental income, service charge and also have less responsibility.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

as far as i understand it is actually gives less power to locals to object to plans for a new school or whatever. under the tories proposals groups of 'locals' (parents or whatever or possibly private charities or private interests) will put requests for new schools straight to central government so bypassing the local planning proceedures and the ability of local people to put in objections. so it is giving power to one set of locals and taking away from another.

It is not about building new schools it is about taking over ones due to close or that are failing.
Why do you think that is a bad thing.

Do you honestly think they will let them do that without a plan and proof it can work.
What as anyone got to gain from taking over the running of a poorly performing school than perhaps a better education for their children.
Why would anyone want to oppose that? or is it a worry that the local council can't cream off some of the funds?

robin_banks

Really2 wrote: »

It is not about building new schools it is about taking over ones due to close or that are failing.
Why do you think that is a bad thing.

Do you honestly think they will let them do that without a plan and proof it can work.
What as anyone got to gain from taking over the running of a poorly performing school than perhaps a better education for their children.
Why would anyone want to oppose that? or is it a worry that the local council can't cream off some of the funds?

My big concern with the schools is who takes them over.

I don't want toddler banks taught creationism for example in years to come, but I do want him taught sex education.

Really2

robin_banks wrote: »

Mortgage plus rent plus (if applicable) service charge will often exceed a 90% mortgage for the same property.

They still need to be approved by the HA, and there are numerous costs to be factored in.

HA's know this full well, it's a nice earner for them. They get rental income, service charge and also have less responsibility.

Part buy near me = £83K for 50%

Monthly rent = £190

Outright buy valuation = £166K

That look way cheaper than a 90% mortgage, but even to get a 90% mortgage you need the 10% also. So you have to overcome the deposit hurdle also (it is easier to save 10% of £83K than £166K)

Really2

robin_banks wrote: »

My big concern with the schools is who takes them over.

I don't want toddler banks taught creationism for example in years to come, but I do want him taught sex education.

They follow the same curriculum and OFSTED inspections as any other school. They are just opted out of state control.

I would suggest people look at academies etc instead of just doing the human reaction.
I don't know about it = Bad
I know a bit about this subject look at the Thomas Telford school perhaps in one of the more poorer areas of the country but one of the best schools opt out from day one I think.

If a school was underperforming would the parents not want a say or chance to improve it instead of moving house just to get to a better school?

You wan't a toddler taught sex education? although I think children do need to learn I think pre school is a bit early IMHO, let them have a child hood. Part of the reason we are like this at the moment as we are forcing children to grow up to quickly.

robin_banks

Really2 wrote: »

Part buy near me = £83K for 50%

Monthly rent = £190

Outright buy valuation = £166K

That look way cheaper than a 90% mortgage, but even to get a 90% mortgage you need the 10% also. So you have to overcome the deposit hurdle also (it is easier to save 10% of £83K than £166K)

Valuations on these is a moot point to say the least.

2.5% rental on the amount you don't own seems to be on the lower side. It's typically 3-3.5 %, so not a bad deal.

It's the service charge on S/O flats that can be the crippler.

Really2

robin_banks wrote: »

Valuations on these is a moot point to say the least.

2.5% rental on the amount you don't own seems to be on the lower side. It's typically 3-3.5 %, so not a bad deal.

It's the service charge on S/O flats that can be the crippler.

Thats a house, perhaps it is a better option for some the further you move away from the south.
Valuation may be £10K+ more than you could buy direct for but then it is a fair amount cheaper anyway.
To finance the other half you would be looking about £500PM, so it is cheaper.
Can't be sure it is a good option but a lot easier for a single person to do than buy outright.

robin_banks

Really2 wrote: »

They follow the same curriculum and OFSTED inspections as any other school. They are just opted out of state control.

I would suggest people look at academies etc instead of just doind the human reaction.
I don't know about it = Bad
I know a bit about this subject look at the Thomas Telford school perhaps in one of the more poorer areas of the country but one of the best schools opt out from day one I think.

If a school was underperforming would the parents not want a say or chance to improve it instead of moving house just to get to a better school?

You wan't a toddler taught sex education? although I think children do need to learn I think pre school is a bit early IMHO, let them have a child hood. Part of the reason we are like this at the moment as we are forcing children to grow up to quickly.

I did say "in years to come". I got the catholic version of sex education at 11 fwiw, some parents kicked off like stink as well.

I'm unconvinced that parents will have the knowledge to make an informed decision re the running of the school.