-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
QuicheFontaine
Member
Good morning UK-poligaf. This isn't strictly politics, but it's something I benefitted from this week so I thought I'd share it. This is for anyone who is currently saving a deposit to buy a house. The TL;DR is that if you've already saved four grand (like my wife and I had), you can turn that into five grand for basically no effort.
You may have already heard of the UK govts help-to-buy ISA. Well now is the time to do if you haven't already, since it's the new tax year. If you have been saving with a cash ISA or stocks and shares ISA, do not put any money into it!! If you do, then you won't be eligible for help-to-buy. My wife and I nearly came a cropper with this, as we had a cash ISA last year, but we made our last payment on 30 March.
Now, the government will contribute 25% of what you have saved in a help-to-buy ISA when you use the money to buy a house. The ISA has limited deposit terms of £200 per month, but! in the first month you can put a one-off payment of £1200 in it. Therefore, if you take advantage of this, and set up a standing order for four more payments of £200 in the following months, your help-to-buy ISA will be at £2000 by August.
And, if you are a couple (or, I guess, even if you're not) you can have one each! So you can have combined help-to-buy ISAs of £4000 by August just by shuffing some money around (it took us around an hour on the phone to our bank to set this up). The govt will then chip in £1000 if you use this money for a deposit.
Hope some of you guys find this useful. The extra T&Cs you should note are that this is for first time buyers only, and that you can only use the money for properties up to £450k in London and £250k outside of London. You also need to have at least £1600 in the ISA to trigger any bonus, but this won't be a problem if you follow my scheme above. Take advantage of this scheme while you can!
You may have already heard of the UK govts help-to-buy ISA. Well now is the time to do if you haven't already, since it's the new tax year. If you have been saving with a cash ISA or stocks and shares ISA, do not put any money into it!! If you do, then you won't be eligible for help-to-buy. My wife and I nearly came a cropper with this, as we had a cash ISA last year, but we made our last payment on 30 March.
Now, the government will contribute 25% of what you have saved in a help-to-buy ISA when you use the money to buy a house. The ISA has limited deposit terms of £200 per month, but! in the first month you can put a one-off payment of £1200 in it. Therefore, if you take advantage of this, and set up a standing order for four more payments of £200 in the following months, your help-to-buy ISA will be at £2000 by August.
And, if you are a couple (or, I guess, even if you're not) you can have one each! So you can have combined help-to-buy ISAs of £4000 by August just by shuffing some money around (it took us around an hour on the phone to our bank to set this up). The govt will then chip in £1000 if you use this money for a deposit.
Hope some of you guys find this useful. The extra T&Cs you should note are that this is for first time buyers only, and that you can only use the money for properties up to £450k in London and £250k outside of London. You also need to have at least £1600 in the ISA to trigger any bonus, but this won't be a problem if you follow my scheme above. Take advantage of this scheme while you can!
My Mum's been telling me to set one of those up for a while now, I probably should get around to it...
Feel a bit sorry for this minister in the news today. It wouldn't be anyone's business, but I do agree with Labour that making decisions on the press isn't really a good idea when the press have some pretty embarrassing info on your personal life.
Feel a bit sorry for this minister in the news today. It wouldn't be anyone's business, but I do agree with Labour that making decisions on the press isn't really a good idea when the press have some pretty embarrassing info on your personal life.
Jezbollah
Member
Good stuff QF - and yep MSE is a goldmine especially if you're planning to buy a new home.
Any financial help during that process is most welcome. I think the cost of me moving last year was around 10k after considering stuff like storage etc and even after the likes of Stamp duty and solicitors fees. oof.
Any financial help during that process is most welcome. I think the cost of me moving last year was around 10k after considering stuff like storage etc and even after the likes of Stamp duty and solicitors fees. oof.
FlammableD
Banned
Money is so confusing :'( I'm not planning on buying in the short term, but will at some point.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I've just been looking into buying recently, and I couldn't believe it when I found out how much stamp duty is. At that point it was basically all our savings - busted back down to zero effectively ;_; it can be very disheartening.
QuicheFontaine
Member
They did change the system in 2014. I don't know what the old system was, but currently it's 0% of the property value up to £125k, 2% between £125k and £250k, 5% between £250k and £925k...
Most people will be paying a few grand stamp duty depending on the price of the house. In my area, SW England, you would be very lucky to find a house (a proper house) under £125k.
Roberto Larcos
Member
And you'd be even luckier to find a decent job to go along with it.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Yeah my flat was was just into the 125k bracket which explains why my cut was huge.
It's depressing, it's really a location lottery with house prices. I'm right in the heart of Glasgow, in a decent part.
You know, aside from that dual machete wielding guy threatening a lollipop man and janitor that one time.
It's depressing, it's really a location lottery with house prices. I'm right in the heart of Glasgow, in a decent part.
You know, aside from that dual machete wielding guy threatening a lollipop man and janitor that one time.
Jezbollah
Member
This Whittingdale story sounds like a load of nonsense. Single man meets woman and has a relationship with her? Seems like exactly the kind of private affair that the newspapers shouldn't be reporting on. I thought Hacked Off were for papers keeping out of private lives?
The argument that there was a 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over Whittingdale because of this relationship doesn't really hold water, because it sure as hell isn't hanging over him now, so if it had any effect on his decisions (for which there isn't any evidence), it wouldn't in future.
The argument that there was a 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over Whittingdale because of this relationship doesn't really hold water, because it sure as hell isn't hanging over him now, so if it had any effect on his decisions (for which there isn't any evidence), it wouldn't in future.
Sorry but I don't buy that for a minute. The minister responsible for oversight of the press and Leveson has a relationship with a sex worker and not a single paper runs with it, despite numerous different papers having it?
Something wasn't right here, one way or the other. Either the press were silenced because they feared what he'd do with Leveson, or they held it over him as a threat.
Something wasn't right here, one way or the other. Either the press were silenced because they feared what he'd do with Leveson, or they held it over him as a threat.
and yet just last week the press were furious about the fact they couldn't print stories about a celebrity that took part in a threesome.
I've been putting money into mine since it launched, Halifax and Santander seem to be the best with 4% interest on top, but Nationwide offer 2% but have packaged it in such a way you can also contribute to a cash ISA with them.
It's kind of cute in a way we have two different stories about ministers' privacy and whether their interests interfere with their ability to do their jobs.
If there's communication between himself and the press about this story then there's a problem, since that's what did for Hunt.
But tbh it's a bit of a non story. Is Private Eye out this week? Wonder if there's anything in there.
If there's communication between himself and the press about this story then there's a problem, since that's what did for Hunt.
But tbh it's a bit of a non story. Is Private Eye out this week? Wonder if there's anything in there.
JonathanEx
Member
Whttingdale. It's a funny one. Like, from the confirmed details, it's really not news. It feels weird that Hacked Off are going "they should have published!". It was before he was Minister and he had the same views beforehand.
But many things that aren't really news are printed for the sake of anti-politician gossip for lolz. Or just because, see the threesome superinjunction that's still standing after all this time, and how hard the press are fighting it. So why wasn't this one? It does seem odd. But it is a reasonable conclusion that could be reached, particularly in a post-Leveson environment then. Under other circumstances I'm sure they'd have run it, under some moral thing. But I guess the moral angle only sticks if you prove he knew her occupation.
I'm suspicious of the Independent not running it, as there are suggestions that it was to not upset the Mail, which feels unlikely and weird.
But I do have one major question.
how did he like, not know what her job was, and only found out when the press told him
like in six months it never came up?
I mean sure I guess it's all possible
¯\_(ツ
_/¯
It's only cos of the Eye this week it's got traction. Byline's story was kind of tough for anyone else to run, Private Eye got a better writeup of the concerns, and so then Whittingdale denied to Newsnight so it has legs for everyone else to run.
But many things that aren't really news are printed for the sake of anti-politician gossip for lolz. Or just because, see the threesome superinjunction that's still standing after all this time, and how hard the press are fighting it. So why wasn't this one? It does seem odd. But it is a reasonable conclusion that could be reached, particularly in a post-Leveson environment then. Under other circumstances I'm sure they'd have run it, under some moral thing. But I guess the moral angle only sticks if you prove he knew her occupation.
I'm suspicious of the Independent not running it, as there are suggestions that it was to not upset the Mail, which feels unlikely and weird.
But I do have one major question.
how did he like, not know what her job was, and only found out when the press told him
like in six months it never came up?
I mean sure I guess it's all possible
¯\_(ツ
_/¯It's only cos of the Eye this week it's got traction. Byline's story was kind of tough for anyone else to run, Private Eye got a better writeup of the concerns, and so then Whittingdale denied to Newsnight so it has legs for everyone else to run.
Exactly this.
There is 0 chance the papers found out about this story and decided not to print it because it wasn't really news.
0 chance at all.
The newspapers (tabloids especially) print any old shit all the time.
I'm not saying Whttingdale has done anything wrong, if he and a "sex worker" want to have a relationship, then makes no difference to me, good luck to them.
But I'm not buying the excuse around the lack of printing for a moment
Yeah, something wasn't right here. He was the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at the time, not a minister. So you have a not unknown, but hardly well known MP, who's a single man, in a relationship with another single woman, and ends it when he discovers her real occupation and someone tries to sell the 'scandal' to the press for £20k.
If there's a single scrap of evidence that four different newspapers conspired together to hold this over Whittingdale, then lets see it. If something like that emerges, then I'll certainly change my tune. But till then, it looks like the papers did the right thing for once and actually left someone's private life to themselves.
And if they did hold it over Whittingdale to change his tune, apparently they also invented a time machine to do it, as Whittingdale was against statutory regulation of the press in at least 2012.
That bit is key...
Do we believe the newspapers suddenly discovered their morals when someone who might have a say in their future is involved....
I'm not saying it's impossible, but just highly unlikely....
But it's not just about regulation of the press. It's also about dismantling the BBC and removing its teeth.
Well, the press want that. You could see why they would want leverage over the Whittingdale to be able to pressure him into dismantling the BBC. Which he has started doing.
I'm not saying that is what is happening, just that it is within the realm of possibility.
And the BBC has quite a vested interest in stirring up controversy around Whittingdale, to have him replaced with a more sympathetic culture secretary. But there's not a scrap of evidence to suggest that's why Newsnight ran the story. Nor is there a scrap of evidence that the newspapers held this over Whittingdale to influence him regarding regulations or the BBC or anything. If there was, then that'd be worth discussing. But otherwise maybe we should be glad that the papers finally thought someone's private life was private and stayed out of it?
I'm sorry but it defies logic that for this *one* situation the press all suddenly, without consultation, decided to behave morally and not publish. That goes against everything they have ever done and are doing *right* now with other people in the public eye.
Why on earth would we give them, and him, the benefit of doubt when it flies against literally every other example of the press we have? And when there's an absolutely crystal clear motive from both sides for not publishing anything?
It's not plausible that for one single case they decided to act morally, and the fact that he was in charge of Leveson and then culture had nothing to do with it.
Why on earth would we give them, and him, the benefit of doubt when it flies against literally every other example of the press we have? And when there's an absolutely crystal clear motive from both sides for not publishing anything?
It's not plausible that for one single case they decided to act morally, and the fact that he was in charge of Leveson and then culture had nothing to do with it.
Exactly. I don't give a shit about his relationship, the point isn't even him particular. It's how our press is fundamentally corrupt and their high and mighty excuses for their shitty behaviour go out of the window the second there's any advantage for them on a regulatory level.
There was one ex Independent reporter, who had investigated the story for 4 months and couldn't get it published despite having editorial support, on Radio 4 yesterday heavily implying there's more to the story than Whittingdale's side of things but he doubts it'll come out now.
JonathanEx
Member
Yeah, he was the one who wrote the long piece on Byline about it being repeatedly dropped.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to it, but without that it's kinda hard to call foul on the press too harshly.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I think the problem is more widely that an influential member of government (chairmen of select committee then Minister) shouldn't be exposed to blackmail in such a way. Not just from press but the woman he was 'dating' is alleged to have some unsavoury connections (and I don't mean to Conservative MPs)..
One single case? So you know how many stories the papers and media have investigated and discovered that they've published every story ever except this one? That's nonsense.
There will have been many, many stories the papers have investigated that they've not published because there's nothing there. We don't know how many because they don't publish them!
The original story isn't a story. Single man has relationship with single woman. That's it. He wasn't a well known figure. He hadn't been on a moral crusade against prostitution. He wasn't married. How is there a story there?
The alternative is conspiracy theory nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it. It's petty and shameful that we have Hacked Off, a group that's done great work campaigning for better privacy protections against media intrusion, suddenly demanding that the media should have intruded on this man and womans private life.
Again, if there's a single shred of evidence to suggest that four newspapers colluded to blackmail Whittingdale, then let's see it.
For a start, read this: https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/720276161461223424
The Mail actively blocked the Independent from publishing the story months ago. But I guess that isn't collusion right?
Roberto Larcos
Member
Collusion? This is just the press self-regulating, no⸮
JonathanEx
Member
To me that reads like the Indy didn't run it in fear of upsetting the Mail - not that they told them not to.
If it's the first, I'm disappointed, but not really a scandal. If it's the latter, well that's even more of an issue.
If it's the first, I'm disappointed, but not really a scandal. If it's the latter, well that's even more of an issue.
Well that's something I suppose. Still not actual evidence, but at least a link between the Mail and the Independent that suggests some possible motivation for collusion, or at least a desire from the Indy to not piss off their landlords.
If that were true, and the Indy thought they had a story, but withheld it for commercial reasons (i.e. pissing off their landlords), then that'd be rather depressing and leave me with a rather low opinion of the Indy.
That doesn't explain why the Sunday People, the first paper to find out about the affair, would have withheld publication though.
FlammableD
Banned
"affair" = consenting relationship between two single adults??
I'm pretty sure he means the other meaning of the word.
Made a thread on it but it will probably disappear soon. So wanted to post it in here as well.
The UK is lagging behind other rich countries on reducing inequalities between rich and poor children, a Unicef report says.
The UN body set up to promote the rights and wellbeing of children highlights "concerning gaps in health, education, and income".
The lack of progress means ambitions to eradicate child poverty are unlikely to be realised in coming years, it adds.
But Unicef added that were it not for benefits, the income gap in Britain would be among the greatest in Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36035304
The UK is lagging behind other rich countries on reducing inequalities between rich and poor children, a Unicef report says.
The UN body set up to promote the rights and wellbeing of children highlights "concerning gaps in health, education, and income".
The lack of progress means ambitions to eradicate child poverty are unlikely to be realised in coming years, it adds.
But Unicef added that were it not for benefits, the income gap in Britain would be among the greatest in Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36035304
JonathanEx
Member
The Whittingdale story keeps amusing me. So oh he didn't know she was a dominatrix, but then according to the Mail on Sunday he also dated a Page 3 star. This is definitely not a man with a trend trying to hide it.
ANYWAY wouldn't it be funny if he didn't declare free hospitality he received at a lapdancing club when chairing the enquiry in to licensing of such establishments
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...ale-caught-in-lapdance-club-row-a3228586.html
ANYWAY wouldn't it be funny if he didn't declare free hospitality he received at a lapdancing club when chairing the enquiry in to licensing of such establishments
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...ale-caught-in-lapdance-club-row-a3228586.html
Not the heroes we deserve, but the ones we need right now.
Also, why am I not surprised to see Philip Davies involved.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Oh my. This story is so delicious, it just has to be fattening.
Haha, I'm imagining the tone in which this was said.
Disgusting, and I think it will backfire on them. They are campaigning like central London doesn't exist, and Goldsmith hasn't the charm to pull off that strategy.
It makes them look divisive and unpleasant, and I haven't heard anything positive about it at all. Admittedly, I live in a very labour area, but it definitely seems a mistake to me.
London isn't the shires, casual racism will only get you so far.
i think i hate more his attempts to stir up community divisions in london between hindu and muslim voters
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Goldsmith should not have listened to Crosby's strategy. He wanted to run a positive campaign, but this just looks gross. He's an interesting character. Exorbitantly wealthy and quite corrupt, but he isn't your rank and file shire Tory. He's all over the place politically.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked