Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

Johnson, who owns a £2.3 million house in Islington

 

interesting that when I point out something similar about Red Ed I get told it has no relevance

 

 

I can see the relevance of the article referencing Johnson's property holdings, as the story is about him criticising people for buying big expensive houses.  I'm sure you can too.

 

Whereas the relevance of the current value of Miliband's house is...?

 

If you're interested in how he came to have such an expensive house (it's not his, by the way - it's his partner's, though he contributes to the mortgage), the Torygraph have thoughtfully set it out in some detail.

 

Ed Miliband’s property ladder

1994. He and his brother, David, are each given a 20 per cent stake in their childhood home in Edis Street, Primrose Hill, following death of their father, Ralph.

1995. Spends about £100,000 on a second-floor flat in Chalcot Square, Primrose Hill, living above his brother in a building formerly inhabited by their grandmother.

2004. Receives at least £160,000 from his brother after selling him his stake of the Edis Street property.

2005. Sells his Chalcot Square flat for £342,000.

2006. Uses proceeds from both properties to buy a flat in nearby Chalcot Road for £648,500.

2009. Sells his flat for £740,000, making a £92,000 profit, and moves in with his girlfriend, Justine Thornton, to a £1.6million house in Dartmouth Park. She had made a £274,000 profit on the sale of a flat in Maida Vale.

 

I think the story gives a pretty good insight into what's wrong with the London property market.  I'm not sure why you think it reflects badly on Miliband, as it seems you do.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

To be fair, a £2.3million house in Islington is actually a one bedroom flat with no windows.

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 24 Sept 2013 - 6:37 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 24 Sept 2013 - 5:20 PM, said:

QuoteJohnson, who owns a £2.3 million house in Islington

 

interesting that when I point out something similar about Red Ed I get told it has no relevance

 

 

I can see the relevance of the article referencing Johnson's property holdings, as the story is about him criticising people for buying big expensive houses.  I'm sure you can too.

 

Whereas the relevance of the current value of Miliband's house is...?

 

If you're interested in how he came to have such an expensive house (it's not his, by the way - it's his partner's, though he contributes to the mortgage), the Torygraph have thoughtfully set it out in some detail.

 

Quote

Ed Miliband’s property ladder

1994. He and his brother, David, are each given a 20 per cent stake in their childhood home in Edis Street, Primrose Hill, following death of their father, Ralph.

1995. Spends about £100,000 on a second-floor flat in Chalcot Square, Primrose Hill, living above his brother in a building formerly inhabited by their grandmother.

2004. Receives at least £160,000 from his brother after selling him his stake of the Edis Street property.

2005. Sells his Chalcot Square flat for £342,000.

2006. Uses proceeds from both properties to buy a flat in nearby Chalcot Road for £648,500.

2009. Sells his flat for £740,000, making a £92,000 profit, and moves in with his girlfriend, Justine Thornton, to a £1.6million house in Dartmouth Park. She had made a £274,000 profit on the sale of a flat in Maida Vale.

 

I think the story gives a pretty good insight into what's wrong with the London property market.  I'm not sure why you think it reflects badly on Miliband, as it seems you do.

 

 

oh let me see know ,millionaire * leader of the poor mans party , living in a £1.6 - £2m (depending on what paper you read ) house , whilst spouting One Nation crap and attacking the rich

 

nope , seems perfectly ok to me

 

 

 

*By his definition of counting property as assets as he did when bleating on (incorrectly) about the tax cut for Millionaires

[mockingbird_franklin]

Mt statement about believing both parties are just faces of the same beast wasn't tongue in cheek, however I do believe our current occupants of government take self serving hypocrisy, corruptness and downright divisive nastiness to new levels.

 

The other thing in mitigation of Ed, is Ed isn't preaching about how terrible the practice of buying huge houses and country estates and passing them on (not explicitly mentioned but implied as tax free). whilst having benefited from large tax haven protected inheritance or had numbers of fellow party members and in all likelihood friends receiving those same benefits.

 

Of course that doesn't mean Mr Ed isn't guilty of other crimes of hypocrisy

Edited September 24, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[snowychap]

oh let me see know ,millionaire * leader of the poor mans party , living in a £1.6 - £2m (depending on what paper you read ) house , whilst spouting One Nation crap and attacking the rich

 

nope , seems perfectly ok to me

Do you have to be poor to criticize the rich/wealthy?

Doesn't it then get written off as the 'politics of envy'?

[peterms]

oh let me see know ,millionaire * leader of the poor mans party , living in a £1.6 - £2m (depending on what paper you read ) house , whilst spouting One Nation crap and attacking the rich

 

nope , seems perfectly ok to me

 

 

 

*By his definition of counting property as assets as he did when bleating on (incorrectly) about the tax cut for Millionaires

 

I don't think you're following the facts too closely, Tony.

 

He bought a flat for £100k in 1995.  That's not too unusual, or the mark of someone who is vastly rich.  That would have been a pretty common price for a flat in many parts of London at the time.  Actually on the low side, from my memory.

 

The flat increased in value by 242% in ten years.  That's utterly insane.  It's wholly out of touch with any notion of real value.  And it's a reflection on the London market, not on him or anyone else who owned a flat.  That's why many people who could have bought if prices had moved in line with inflation were then priced out.

 

He inherited a part share in his parents' home.  Lucky boy - like about half the country, I suppose.  Luckier that it was in Primrose Hill, of course.

 

He then bought another flat with the proceeds of sale plus his part of the inheritance, it increased in value like every other property in London (but not by the staggering % of the first one), and moved in with his missus, with both of them pooling their money to do so.  The house they bought was £1.6m at the time of the Torygraph story, and £2.3m at the time of the later story.  I expect it's worth even more now.

 

Miliband is not a member of the lower reaches of the working class.  He's the son of a brilliant intellectual and academic, and comes from the north London milieu of such people.  But the value of the property he lives in has far more to do with the utterly mad London property market (which Osborne is desperately trying to stoke into flames again) than the inference you seem to be trying to draw, that he's in some way descended from the landed gentry and has no right to present himself as speaking in the interests of ordinary people.  You're making a debating point, unfortunately a weak one, and nothing more. 

 

Going back to your first comment, perhaps that's why people have commented on the apparent irrelevance of your jibe.  Just trying to help you out, here.

 

[tonyh29]

snowychap, on 24 Sept 2013 - 6:56 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 24 Sept 2013 - 6:47 PM, said:

oh let me see know ,millionaire * leader of the poor mans party , living in a £1.6 - £2m (depending on what paper you read ) house , whilst spouting One Nation crap and attacking the rich

 

nope , seems perfectly ok to me

Do you have to be poor to criticize the rich/wealthy?

Doesn't it then get written off as the 'politics of envy'?

 

 

depends how you attack them , but if you stand in the house of commons spouting sound bites of "Millionaire tax cuts " for the News at 10  highlight reel , whilst knowing that it A) isn't' true and that you also potentially benefit from it , then no imo you shouldn't criticize

 

I'd have more respect for the likes of Len " i wanted to give the salary back but Union rules don't allow me to " McClusky *   if they practised what they preached 

 

* I think it was him , it may have been some other Union fat cat though , no doubt i'll soon be put straight

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 24 Sept 2013 - 7:06 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 24 Sept 2013 - 6:47 PM, said:

oh let me see know ,millionaire * leader of the poor mans party , living in a £1.6 - £2m (depending on what paper you read ) house , whilst spouting One Nation crap and attacking the rich

 

nope , seems perfectly ok to me

 

 

 

*By his definition of counting property as assets as he did when bleating on (incorrectly) about the tax cut for Millionaires

 

I don't think you're following the facts too closely, Tony.

 

He bought a flat for £100k in 1995.  That's not too unusual, or the mark of someone who is vastly rich.  That would have been a pretty common price for a flat in many parts of London at the time.  Actually on the low side, from my memory.

 

The flat increased in value by 242% in ten years.  That's utterly insane.  It's wholly out of touch with any notion of real value.  And it's a reflection on the London market, not on him or anyone else who owned a flat.  That's why many people who could have bought if prices had moved in line with inflation were then priced out.

 

He inherited a part share in his parents' home.  Lucky boy - like about half the country, I suppose.  Luckier that it was in Primrose Hill, of course.

 

He then bought another flat with the proceeds of sale plus his part of the inheritance, it increased in value like every other property in London (but not by the staggering % of the first one), and moved in with his missus, with both of them pooling their money to do so.  The house they bought was £1.6m at the time of the Torygraph story, and £2.3m at the time of the later story.  I expect it's worth even more now.

 

Miliband is not a member of the lower reaches of the working class.  He's the son of a brilliant intellectual and academic, and comes from the north London milieu of such people.  But the value of the property he lives in has far more to do with the utterly mad London property market (which Osborne is desperately trying to stoke into flames again) than the inference you seem to be trying to draw, that he's in some way descended from the landed gentry and has no right to present himself as speaking in the interests of ordinary people.  You're making a debating point, unfortunately a weak one, and nothing more. 

 

Going back to your first comment, perhaps that's why people have commented on the apparent irrelevance of your jibe.  Just trying to help you out, here.

 

 

 

Quoting yourself as people FTW

 

but as we are helping each other out  , you need to work on your delivery a bit  as you don't half come across as condescending and smug  ... this must be what your 3rd or 4th attack on my intelligence ( or lack of ) in the past week  .....

Edited September 24, 2013 by tonyh29

[peterms]

but as we are helping each other out  , you need to work on your delivery a bit  as you don't half come across as condescending and smug  ... this must be what your 3rd or 4th attack on my intelligence ( or lack of ) now int he past week

Condescending?  That's a big word.

[snowychap]

depends how you attack them , but if you stand in the house of commons spouting sound bites of "Millionaire tax cuts " for the News at 10  highlight reel , whilst knowing that it A) isn't' true and that you also potentially benefit from it , then no imo you shouldn't criticize

Are you that critical of the soundbites that come from the treasury benches, Tony? I'm not so sure.

As for b: you are saying that anyone who was a beneficiary of that tax cut can't criticize it - and by (different) extensions can't either criticize the party that brought it in or criticize the rich if they find themselves to be in the same income/asset holding decile.

I also think there's a huge difference between people benefitting from someone else's policy and people making policy that would seem to necessarily benefit themselves.

[peterms]

Quoting yourself as people FTW

I thought it was someone else who made the comment about relevance that you complained of, that's why I said "people". Was it me? I don't remember.

[tonyh29]

depends how you attack them , but if you stand in the house of commons spouting sound bites of "Millionaire tax cuts " for the News at 10 highlight reel , whilst knowing that it A) isn't' true and that you also potentially benefit from it , then no imo you shouldn't criticize

Are you that critical of the soundbites that come from the treasury benches, Tony? I'm not so sure.

.

Believe it or not there are quite a lot of critical posts about policy etc from me

True I do have a bias ( against labour ) but I am not as myopic as others in this regard

[tonyh29]

but as we are helping each other out , you need to work on your delivery a bit as you don't half come across as condescending and smug ... this must be what your 3rd or 4th attack on my intelligence ( or lack of ) now int he past week

Condescending? That's a big word.

Well played Edited September 24, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

Believe it or not there are quite a lot of critical posts about policy etc from me

Oh I do believe it as I've seen it (at least about policy - and perhaps some individuals).

It was the soundbite bit of it that I wasn't so sure about.

[Risso]

 

oh let me see know ,millionaire * leader of the poor mans party , living in a £1.6 - £2m (depending on what paper you read ) house , whilst spouting One Nation crap and attacking the rich

 

nope , seems perfectly ok to me

 

 

 

*By his definition of counting property as assets as he did when bleating on (incorrectly) about the tax cut for Millionaires

 

I don't think you're following the facts too closely, Tony.

 

He bought a flat for £100k in 1995.  That's not too unusual, or the mark of someone who is vastly rich.  That would have been a pretty common price for a flat in many parts of London at the time.  Actually on the low side, from my memory.

 

The flat increased in value by 242% in ten years.  That's utterly insane.  It's wholly out of touch with any notion of real value.  And it's a reflection on the London market, not on him or anyone else who owned a flat.  That's why many people who could have bought if prices had moved in line with inflation were then priced out.

 

He inherited a part share in his parents' home.  Lucky boy - like about half the country, I suppose.  Luckier that it was in Primrose Hill, of course.

 

He then bought another flat with the proceeds of sale plus his part of the inheritance, it increased in value like every other property in London (but not by the staggering % of the first one), and moved in with his missus, with both of them pooling their money to do so.  The house they bought was £1.6m at the time of the Torygraph story, and £2.3m at the time of the later story.  I expect it's worth even more now.

 

Miliband is not a member of the lower reaches of the working class.  He's the son of a brilliant intellectual and academic, and comes from the north London milieu of such people.  But the value of the property he lives in has far more to do with the utterly mad London property market (which Osborne is desperately trying to stoke into flames again) than the inference you seem to be trying to draw, that he's in some way descended from the landed gentry and has no right to present himself as speaking in the interests of ordinary people.  You're making a debating point, unfortunately a weak one, and nothing more. 

 

Going back to your first comment, perhaps that's why people have commented on the apparent irrelevance of your jibe.  Just trying to help you out, here.

 

 

 

Looks like he was given at least a quarter of a million one way or another.

[bickster]

Looks like he was given at least a quarter of a million one way or another.

So much less than the current inheritance tax threshold then, which many think is way too low as it is.

[peterms]

Looks like he was given at least a quarter of a million one way or another.

Inheritance valued at £160k when sold. What are you thinking of as the other £90k that he was given?

[Risso]

 

Looks like he was given at least a quarter of a million one way or another.

Inheritance valued at £160k when sold. What are you thinking of as the other £90k that he was given?

 

 

Actually it was probably indirectly more than that.  He got 20% of a building that he later paid £800,000 for the remaining 80%.  Bit more detail on the various purchases in this Graun piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/09/ed-miliband-journalists-in-glass-houses#start-of-comments

[bickster]

Looks like he was given at least a quarter of a million one way or another.

Inheritance valued at £160k when sold. What are you thinking of as the other £90k that he was given?

 

Actually it was probably indirectly more than that.  He got 20% of a building that he later paid £800,000 for the remaining 80%.  Bit more detail on the various purchases in this Graun piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/09/ed-miliband-journalists-in-glass-houses#start-of-comments

Later paid is irrelevant though, inheritance is judged at time of death not later profit. 3 Estate agents valuations and they take the middle one usually

[tonyh29]

Looks like he was given at least a quarter of a million one way or another.

Inheritance valued at £160k when sold. What are you thinking of as the other £90k that he was given?

Actually it was probably indirectly more than that. He got 20% of a building that he later paid £800,000 for the remaining 80%. Bit more detail on the various purchases in this Graun piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/09/ed-miliband-journalists-in-glass-houses#start-of-comments

Presumably the fact that he used some of his previous gains as part of the huge deposit on the £2m house but he isn't on the deeds even though he jointly pays the mortgage .... Is just an over sight and nothing to do with trying to avoid or hide anything ?