The answer will eventually be, "Education, education, education".
Didn't tony try that?
I think the answer is more 'expectation, expectation, expectation'. IE
1. Sorry kid I don't care if you were up til midnight and your mum was drunk as a skunk, you are learning this grammar. It is the only thing that's going to help you.
2. Sorry kid I don;t care if you've never met your dad and your mum's a convicted shoplifter. You ain't disrupting this classroom or behaving like a d8ck. Do I understand? no and I never will. But you still ain't allowed to behave like a tw7t.
Labour's economic strategy will lie in ruins tomorrow. Inflation down and earnings up. I don't know what they are going to try and tackle next but one hopes they choose more wisely since their last two efforts have not worked, growth is the highest in the G7 and wages will be higher in May 2015 than May 2010 in real terms using CPI. It's going to be painful for Labour when they central economic argument falls on deaf ears as incomes recover and the savings rate begins to rise. If corporate investment rises as the levels that have been forecast (something I remain sceptical of) then their last plank falls away as there will have been a rebalancing of sorts by the time the election rolls around.
Miliband needs to weild an axe and get rid of his whole economic team and replace them before the election with people untainted by these failures.
I suspect you are right, though it perhaps shouldn't be. Growth returned far later than Osborne predicted, and raising real wages (just) over 5 years isn't particularly impressive. But in politics the arguments that "It would have been even worse if I wasn't in charge" and "It would have been even better if I was in charge" don't count for much.
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
ou
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
You might be able to contact him through the Old Etonian Association.
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
Mr. Palmer, the focus on the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is stupid.
Imagine if the poorest quarter, for argument's sake, became 25% wealthier overnight, and the richest quarter became 30% wealthier. The gap between the two would increase, but who cares? What matters is that the poorest have enough to be relatively [ahem] comfortable.
Now imagine the poorest quarter became 25% poorer, and the richest 50% poorer. That would narrow the gap between the two. Would it be a good thing?
Of course not. What matters is not the envy politics of knocking the rich, but the humane desire to see the poorest able to afford a basic standard of living without being uncertain whether they'll be able to afford the shopping next week.
Labour's economic strategy will lie in ruins tomorrow. Inflation down and earnings up. I don't know what they are going to try and tackle next but one hopes they choose more wisely since their last two efforts have not worked, growth is the highest in the G7 and wages will be higher in May 2015 than May 2010 in real terms using CPI. It's going to be painful for Labour when they central economic argument falls on deaf ears as incomes recover and the savings rate begins to rise. If corporate investment rises as the levels that have been forecast (something I remain sceptical of) then their last plank falls away as there will have been a rebalancing of sorts by the time the election rolls around.
Miliband needs to weild an axe and get rid of his whole economic team and replace them before the election with people untainted by these failures.
Or it may simply be too little too late. I'm not so keen on these low inflation numbers. We need a good dose of inflation to clear our massive debts. Why the Bank of England is targeting 2% I've no idea. I imagine Balls remains as committed to this baloney as the coalition is.
The Tories have a low inflation fetish. Labour followed the same doctrine in government and can't accept it was a mistake. The Lib Dems want to make the coalition look a success so they won't rock the boat with any new ideas. Arghhhhhhhhh.
Chris Bryant @ChrisBryantMP 44m Just tirned down being a panellist on a Ukraine discussion as it would be all-male. Come on think tanks, think outide the male bubble.
Chris Bryant worries about Ukraine and tanks...think tanks. Are we there yet Vlad?
"London has become a citadel, sealed off from the rest of Britain Ukip and Scottish nationalism are symptoms of public hostility to the overweening power and dominance of the capital"
The sooner London declares independence the better. It's already a foreign statelet to most Brits...
The TBTF mega banks can't survive - at least not at a 33:1 capital ratio - without tens of millions of tax serfs who are legally obliged to backstop potential losses.
The following large banks are headquartered in London:
Lloyds Bank PLC Barclays PLC HSBC PLC Standard Chartered PLC
Of those four, exactly one (Lloyds Bank) was bailed out by the tax payer in the global financial crisis.
Lloyds and Standard Chartered have - to all intents and purposes - no investment banking activities. In the latter case, tier one capital is 10.3% of assets; or to put it simply approximately a 10-1 leverage ratio. Standard Chartered has an 11.7% tier one capital ratio, or leverage of 9-1.
HSBC does have some investment banking businesses, however, they are small relative to the size of the group. It has a tier one ratio of 13.6% (leverage of 7-1). Barclays has the biggest investment banking business, but its tier one capital ratio is 15.7%. (Leverage of just 6-to-1).
If you want to look at a country where the size of banking assets totally dwarfs the local economy, you might try Switzerland instead.
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
ou
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
You might be able to contact him through the Old Etonian Association.
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
I thought he went to Dulwich.
He did, but it is not stopping him wearing an OE tie.
He wore it in the debate with Clegg and is doing it again today.
College, the anti-establishment establishment clone!
BBC - "Italy's former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi must do one year's community service over tax fraud, a Milan court has ruled."
If TSE is still looking for thread ideas, suggestions as to what this 'community service' should entail could be both politically significant and informative. - or just a hoot...!
The afternoon thread is going to be either about Clegg or Farage.
I have two half written pieces, I'll see which one I can complete first.
Mr. Palmer, the focus on the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is stupid.
Imagine if the poorest quarter, for argument's sake, became 25% wealthier overnight, and the richest quarter became 30% wealthier. The gap between the two would increase, but who cares? What matters is that the poorest have enough to be relatively [ahem] comfortable.
Now imagine the poorest quarter became 25% poorer, and the richest 50% poorer. That would narrow the gap between the two. Would it be a good thing?
Of course not. What matters is not the envy politics of knocking the rich, but the humane desire to see the poorest able to afford a basic standard of living without being uncertain whether they'll be able to afford the shopping next week.
In theory you have a point, but the fact is that in practise the gap between rich and poor has been a fairly reliable indicator of various social cohesion issues (some would argue because it is the cause) for a long period. The fact that a figure can in some circumstances be misleading doesn't mean it should be ignored, unless there is reason to believe those circumstances are occurring.
"I think the answer is more 'expectation, expectation, expectation'."
You have something there, Mr. Taffys. Perhaps not in the extremes you quote, because they are too extreme except for the very, very, strong to cope with, but with the basic idea of expectation driving success. I remember reading a year or two back about a school in East London which was achieving tremendous results all based around discipline, hard work and high expectations (the opposite of what the educational establishment seems to think best).
However, until we have an education system that is fit for purpose in the 21t century we are going nowhere in terms of poverty (relative or otherwise)
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Ian Birrell had a very good article in the Independent yesterday about the Lib Dems. Says he spoke to one of their most senior figures pre the 2010 election in which the person suggested that the future for the Lib Dems was along the lines of the Free Democrats in Germany. Presumably a mixture of economic and social liberalism that should prove popular to many of the metropolitan elite. However it's hard to see how a political party who's base is in provincial Britain could successfully transform itself in such a way. The strategy would appear to be to try and free ride of a naive political base in order to pursue a personal agenda.
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
ou
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
You might be able to contact him through the Old Etonian Association.
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
I thought he went to Dulwich.
He did, but it is not stopping him wearing an OE tie.
He wore it in the debate with Clegg and is doing it again today.
College, the anti-establishment establishment clone!
In the late lamented Goon Show there was an exchange between Eccles and Seagoon, where the latter asked Eccles if he was wearing a Cambridge tie. Yup What were you doing in Cambridge? Buying a tie!
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
ou
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
You might be able to contact him through the Old Etonian Association.
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
I thought he went to Dulwich.
He did, but it is not stopping him wearing an OE tie.
He wore it in the debate with Clegg and is doing it again today.
College, the anti-establishment establishment clone!
@SimonStClare Perhaps Silvio could 'rescue' fallen women as his penance.
A delightful idea, positively Gladstonian in its approach.
It was once said of the then Prime Minister: "There are more entries in Gladstone's diaries about prostitutes than there are about political hostesses, more recorded visits to the fallen women on the streets of London than recorded attendances at the balls and soirées of the grandes dames of polite Victorian society."
I suspect Berlusconi’s diaries are of a similar vein.
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Ian Birrell had a very good article in the Independent yesterday about the Lib Dems. Says he spoke to one of their most senior figures pre the 2010 election in which the person suggested that the future for the Lib Dems was along the lines of the Free Democrats in Germany. Presumably a mixture of economic and social liberalism that should prove popular to many of the metropolitan elite. However it's hard to see how a political party who's base is in provincial Britain could successfully transform itself in such a way. The strategy would appear to be to try and free ride of a naive political base in order to pursue a personal agenda.
That would be a party I could and would support. It would be a 5-10% of the vote share party. However, while the Orange Bookers might be that, Tim Farron and Vince Cable are not.
Can we please have PR so:
1. Parties like UKIP can have some proper representation 2. A party like the FDP can emerge
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Ian Birrell had a very good article in the Independent yesterday about the Lib Dems. Says he spoke to one of their most senior figures pre the 2010 election in which the person suggested that the future for the Lib Dems was along the lines of the Free Democrats in Germany. Presumably a mixture of economic and social liberalism that should prove popular to many of the metropolitan elite. However it's hard to see how a political party who's base is in provincial Britain could successfully transform itself in such a way. The strategy would appear to be to try and free ride of a naive political base in order to pursue a personal agenda.
I recall what happened to the FDP in the last Bundestag elections.
rcs - much better capitalised now, yes. Are you trying to absolve London of blame for what happened in 2008? Lehman Bros, AIG - nothing to do with London????
A wonderful and truly kipperesque letter from "David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA".
"When I went to school we were taught the times tables and that £700 times 12 equals £8400 (which is not too far removed from Mr Farage’s £1000 per month) so where on earth did you come up with a figure of £3000?"
"Finally, I should point out that the Lyminster is nowhere near Bognor Regis; it is on the outskirts of Littlehampton, a fact that could have been verified by looking at an AA road atlas.
But at least we are getting somewhat closer to the relevant numbers.
Go out and do it, Nick! No-one should depart this green and pleasant land without having climbed a tree. For the truest joy, make it a conker tree in Autumn! In a national park!
BBC - "Italy's former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi must do one year's community service over tax fraud, a Milan court has ruled."
If TSE is still looking for thread ideas, suggestions as to what this 'community service' should entail could be both politically significant and informative. - or just a hoot...!
The afternoon thread is going to be either about Clegg or Farage.
I have two half written pieces, I'll see which one I can complete first.
Mr. Palmer, the focus on the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is stupid.
Imagine if the poorest quarter, for argument's sake, became 25% wealthier overnight, and the richest quarter became 30% wealthier. The gap between the two would increase, but who cares? What matters is that the poorest have enough to be relatively [ahem] comfortable.
Now imagine the poorest quarter became 25% poorer, and the richest 50% poorer. That would narrow the gap between the two. Would it be a good thing?
Of course not. What matters is not the envy politics of knocking the rich, but the humane desire to see the poorest able to afford a basic standard of living without being uncertain whether they'll be able to afford the shopping next week.
In theory you have a point, but the fact is that in practise the gap between rich and poor has been a fairly reliable indicator of various social cohesion issues (some would argue because it is the cause) for a long period. The fact that a figure can in some circumstances be misleading doesn't mean it should be ignored, unless there is reason to believe those circumstances are occurring.
Probably the most socially cohesive period in UK history that can be demonstrated was the late Summer of 1914 (look at how many people of all social classes rushed to join up to fight for "their" country) What was the gap between rich and poor at that time?
rcs - much better capitalised now, yes. Are you trying to absolve London of blame for what happened in 2008? Lehman Bros, AIG - nothing to do with London????
The banking crisis in the UK was caused by (a) British banks lending too much money to people to buy houses, and (b) RBS borrowing tens of billions of pounds to buy ABN Amro at the top of the cycle
The main mortgage and subprime losses were incurred by Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, and Halifax Bank of Scotland.
Lehman Brothers was not a British bank, and it lost its money almost entirely in US subprime. AIG was not a British bank, and almost all its losses originated in its US financial products subsidiary, writing CDS's.
Interesting discussion of poverty, especially Twisted's thought-provoking post.
This is a political blog, so the question is what the Government can usefully do. Attempts to "interfere" with bad parenting get short shrift in Britain, but I'd like to see some parenting classes in secondary schools to have a shot at planting ideas about engagement with and encouragement of kids. As for poverty, part of the issue above is that parents (often single parents) are really hard-pressed - yes, they can buy a TV on HP but life is a struggle all the same. The left-wing response isn't the straw man of making everyone equally wealthy but pushing back the fringes of the gulf between rich and poor, with high taxation of the very rich and support of people on low incomes as well as good public services including childcare help. This isn't a fantasy - it would be possible for us to adopt a Scandinavian approach if we wanted to, but we try to have a welfare state on the cheap, which is neither one thing nor the other.
One of the most insightful things Nick Palmer has ever said - which stuck with me, because it's true - is that most Tory MPs have little to no real knowledge of what it's like to live on the poverty line, because most have never been there. There are of course a few exceptions.
Of course, you could say that about plenty of Labour MPs now as well. But that shouldn't detract from the main point: conservatives need to come up with a slightly better answer to the 25-30% of us who have a poor quality of life than 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. This might have worked to get a sufficient number of votes in the 1980s, with council house sales, privatisations, and the new consumer age, but the world is different now. We are now fully within the post-industrial age and globalisation is a massive challenge.
The right-wing response is much harder. It says that stronger families and communities, passing down strong parenting skills, and supporting one other, are the answer. Not the State. Cameron had a crack at trying to communicate this as the Big Society in GE2010, but it failed abysmally. Besides which it's very hard to re-establish that once the chain has been broken. This needs to happen in tandem with a strong, rigorous education system and the government doing whatever it can to help the private sector create well-paid jobs.
Nick Palmer's answer is not the answer. It requires a colossal amount of public welfare spending and redistribution, which we can't afford and would not actually solve the problem.
What I'm yet to make my mind up on yet if whether the government should do more on transport, housing, jobs and energy policy. Some ideas being to better connect the country digitally and physically, support new technology and investment in emerging industry, prioritise cheaper energy/fuels and encourage/build low-cost housing.
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Ian Birrell had a very good article in the Independent yesterday about the Lib Dems. Says he spoke to one of their most senior figures pre the 2010 election in which the person suggested that the future for the Lib Dems was along the lines of the Free Democrats in Germany. Presumably a mixture of economic and social liberalism that should prove popular to many of the metropolitan elite. However it's hard to see how a political party who's base is in provincial Britain could successfully transform itself in such a way. The strategy would appear to be to try and free ride of a naive political base in order to pursue a personal agenda.
That would be a party I could and would support. It would be a 5-10% of the vote share party. However, while the Orange Bookers might be that, Tim Farron and Vince Cable are not.
Can we please have PR so:
1. Parties like UKIP can have some proper representation 2. A party like the FDP can emerge
It's legitimate political territory. I think you're right on the 5-10% figure. However it does not excuse the dishonesty of the Lib Dem leadership. If they want to be like the FDP, seek a mandate from the electorate. Instead they've tried to hijack a Party and deceive the voters.
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Ian Birrell had a very good article in the Independent yesterday about the Lib Dems. Says he spoke to one of their most senior figures pre the 2010 election in which the person suggested that the future for the Lib Dems was along the lines of the Free Democrats in Germany. Presumably a mixture of economic and social liberalism that should prove popular to many of the metropolitan elite. However it's hard to see how a political party who's base is in provincial Britain could successfully transform itself in such a way. The strategy would appear to be to try and free ride of a naive political base in order to pursue a personal agenda.
That would be a party I could and would support. It would be a 5-10% of the vote share party. However, while the Orange Bookers might be that, Tim Farron and Vince Cable are not.
Can we please have PR so:
1. Parties like UKIP can have some proper representation 2. A party like the FDP can emerge
It's legitimate political territory. I think you're right on the 5-10% figure. However it does not excuse the dishonesty of the Lib Dem leadership. If they want to be like the FDP, seek a mandate from the electorate. Instead they've tried to hijack a Party and deceive the voters.
The LibDems - like every British political party - is a coalition. People who voted UKIP because they want Richard Tyndall's libertarianism are going to be pretty disappointed if they get socially conservative policies. David Cameron has been much more pro-European in power - thanks partly to 'the art of the possible', thanks partly to the Eurozone crisis, and thanks partly to the coalition - than he was in opposition.
Parties react to events. The Lib Dems uneasy coalition between by wooly liberals and classical liberals was always going to be a serious issue for them if they ever attained any degree of power. It may be possible for it to continue in the future, it may not. PR would at least allow parties to be more honest in their presentation.
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Doesn't quite work like that. LDs could come fourth and hold their seat.
They will, provided the sum of the integer multiples of their vote obtained by the top three parties is less than 6.
" Lyminster is about 8 miles from Bognor - I'd say that was pretty close"
Only because you don't understand the Sussex scale of distances. Under the Sussex Scale Lyminster is as close to Bognor Regis as it is to London. Thirty-odd years ago when I married and we bought a house in Littlehampton, Lyminster was regarded as somewhere very separate, not quite 12 toes territory but close (had a very nice pub by the railway crossing though).
Let me try and translate the distance issue into terms that Londoners will understand. What is the distance between Wandsworth and Shoreditch? About 9 miles. Get my point?
"It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity."
Huzzah! Mr. Stopper, makes points about real poverty in England today. There are a relatively small number of people who do live in, if you will, traditional poverty, most of them invisible to the benefits system. There are an enormous number that live in this real poverty that Mr. Stopper outlines, and its a poverty that has nothing to do with 1-2 holidays a year or linen shirts, but it is one that is really soul destroying for the individual, damaging to the national well-being and one that nobody in politics wants to talk about, and it is getting worse not better.
Seeing a toddler running around a filthy, cluttered house in just a dirty nappy, whilst a 50 inch TV blares away in the corner is an everyday sight.
That is the contender for post of the year not some rehashed, plagiarism.
Indeed, but notice that there is no lack of cash money coming into that household. Someone who can afford a 50" TV can afford nappies for the child instead of the TV, or perhaps as well as a smaller one.
Smith's definition of what constituted relative poverty is clear from the examples he chose. He's citing people without shoes or a minimal standard of clothing. There can be no doubt that that is poor, so while it's relative, it's also absolute. That is a long way from assuming that if he were here today, he'd agree that having the wrong trainers or a 40" rather than a 50" TV is the equivalent level of deprivation. My children get museum outings instead of either of those things, so on some definitions they're also poor. In the past, when I've been out of work, I've been poor.
There comes a level at which what a poor person has is so far beyond the minimum that people immigrate in order to be poor by that standard. We saw this with America in the 19th century and we're seeing it with Britain today. I'd be thrilled to be on 60% of the median wage in Monaco.
Any percentage of any wage measure is simply a definition of inequality. I don't think Adam Smith ever argued for that to be abolished.
" Lyminster is about 8 miles from Bognor - I'd say that was pretty close"
Only because you don't understand the Sussex scale of distances. Under the Sussex Scale Lyminster is as close to Bognor Regis as it is to London. Thirty-odd years ago when I married and we bought a house in Littlehampton, Lyminster was regarded as somewhere very separate, not quite 12 toes territory but close (had a very nice pub by the railway crossing though).
Let me try and translate the distance issue into terms that Londoners will understand. What is the distance between Wandsworth and Shoreditch? About 9 miles. Get my point?
Not being a Londoner, I understand that 8 miles isn't really that far.
New York is a long way from Bognor. Lyminster isn't.
Hard to believe that the UKIP bloke is going all swivel eyed over that.
One way to stop the '50-inch flat screen, cider and fags' syndrome would be to pay benefits in vouchers (nappies, food, heat, light, computer time, phone time, travel etc) but I don;t see any government having the courage to do that.
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Doesn't quite work like that. LDs could come fourth and hold their seat.
They will, provided the sum of the integer multiples of their vote obtained by the top three parties is less than 6.
In fact, it's hard to see the LDs losing the South West.
UKIP >=30% and LDs <10% are the realistic conditions for it...
One way to stop the '50-inch flat screen, cider and fags' syndrome would be to pay benefits in vouchers (nappies, food, heat, light, computer time, phone time, travel etc) but I don;t see any government having the courage to do that.
Would just be sold on or traded by corner shops for other products at a discount...
The concept of the thread is absolutely right. The LD switchers are absolutely nailed on for Lab. A good third of the Lib Dems' 2010 support were middle-class Guardianistas who thought they were voting for a party which was atleast as economically left-wing as Labour plus more left-wing socially. I don't think it's QUITE as simple as all of them jumping ship as soon as they got into bed with the Tories - in my experience, when in its first few days the Coalition rhetoric was all woolly and centrist and sunny and Rose Garden-y, quite a few Libs were willing to reserve judgement - certainly the Lib Dems' poll ratings held up OK for the first few weeks, and that delayed election in Thirsk & Malton actually saw the Lib Dem vote go up. What was really the final straw for those Guardianistas was when it gradually became clear that the Coalition wasn't going to be centrist at all, but was going to have a full-fat Thatcherite economic programme. In retrospect, Harriet Harman's response to that first June budget, where she really set the narrative that the Lib Dems had sold out on everything they stood for, might be the most significant event of this election cycle.
With that said, even though the LD->Lab switchers are locked down, the real issue for Labour is keeping all their 2010 voters on board. I'm still exasperated by the complacency in Labour's high command that they can take their working-class "core vote" for granted. It seems to me many of them are more disenchanted with Labour than ever, they don't think they've fought the cuts loudly enough, don't think they're particularly concerned with working-class people (and the leadership is a problem for this group -- not that they hate Ed as such, just they think he's too middle-class and doesn't understand them). But the Labour leadership still don't seem to have cottoned onto what a big problem they have with this group, as they're still so obsessed with chasing the mythical "centre ground" and rambling on about budget discipline...Ed Balls in some Guardian article this morning is again cringeworthily repeating his soundbite about "balancing the books but in a fairer way".
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Doesn't quite work like that. LDs could come fourth and hold their seat. They will, provided the sum of the integer multiples of their vote obtained by the top three parties is less than 6.
In fact, it's hard to see the LDs losing the South West. UKIP >=30% and LDs
The LDs could also come 5th behind the Greens in SW. As in Greens 12, LD 11?
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Doesn't quite work like that. LDs could come fourth and hold their seat. They will, provided the sum of the integer multiples of their vote obtained by the top three parties is less than 6.
In fact, it's hard to see the LDs losing the South West. UKIP >=30% and LDs
The LDs could also come 5th behind the Greens in SW. As in Greens 12, LD 11?
In theory, yes, but for practical purposes no. The LDs would only hold their seat in that case if only one party secured >22% (and no higher than 33%)...
One way to stop the '50-inch flat screen, cider and fags' syndrome would be to pay benefits in vouchers (nappies, food, heat, light, computer time, phone time, travel etc) but I don;t see any government having the courage to do that.
Would just be sold on or traded by corner shops for other products at a discount...
I wonder what % of face value the food vouchers would trade at.
One way to stop the '50-inch flat screen, cider and fags' syndrome would be to pay benefits in vouchers (nappies, food, heat, light, computer time, phone time, travel etc) but I don;t see any government having the courage to do that.
Would just be sold on or traded by corner shops for other products at a discount...
I wonder what % of face value the food vouchers would trade at.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
(Besides, Labour did F All to improve the availability of housing during their time in office. Quite the opposite in fact, as they inflated the credit bubble. Their concerns now are laughable).
One way to stop the '50-inch flat screen, cider and fags' syndrome would be to pay benefits in vouchers (nappies, food, heat, light, computer time, phone time, travel etc) but I don;t see any government having the courage to do that.
Food stamps are actively traded in the US. You'd need to do something high-tech - with biometrics, etc. - and that will still be circumvented by people selling nappies at 60% of face and buying Marlboro Lights.
One way to stop the '50-inch flat screen, cider and fags' syndrome would be to pay benefits in vouchers (nappies, food, heat, light, computer time, phone time, travel etc) but I don;t see any government having the courage to do that.
Food stamps are actively traded in the US. You'd need to do something high-tech - with biometrics, etc. - and that will still be circumvented by people selling nappies at 60% of face and buying Marlboro Lights.
That's inevitable with any tech - you can't stop simple barter. Still, even if it's just 70% effective, that would be a massive and worthwhile improvement.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
My gut feel is that with the fixed term parliaments act and no election until May 2015 a known, voters will continue to to use opinion polls as a "mid term" tool, ie a retort to the party in power without considering much about whether they actually like the alternative, until after Christmas or perhaps just before. After Christmas when voters actually take a good look at Ed & Ed I suspect there will be a shift.
Not enough for a tory majority, but enough for a tory minority government propped up by supply and confidence agreement with the DUP, with another election within two years.
Whatever gets you through the night.
That seems rather unnecessary. After returning here after a period of several years (used to post as Paul, Bedfordshire some years ago), it seems to me that the quality of debate has gone down hill and things are far more partisan and less gentlemanly than they used to be.
Perhaps it was because I was supporting the Tories last time round but now I'm not anymore as I've despaired of them and will support UKIP next time, but I think there is more to it than that, it just dosent seem as friendly anymore.
For me the most interesting result in the Euros will be the south west. Can the Lib Dems hold onto their seat? Not, I imagine, if they come fourth. If they're down 5%, Labour need to be up 5%. 13% may well do it for Labour, they got 14.5% in 2004 when Labour's national vote share was 28%.
Doesn't quite work like that. LDs could come fourth and hold their seat. They will, provided the sum of the integer multiples of their vote obtained by the top three parties is less than 6.
In fact, it's hard to see the LDs losing the South West. UKIP >=30% and LDs
The LDs could also come 5th behind the Greens in SW. As in Greens 12, LD 11?
In theory, yes, but for practical purposes no. The LDs would only hold their seat in that case if only one party secured >22% (and no higher than 33%)...
True about the numbers. But it is practicable given the trends. C 25%, UKIP 27% LD 11% GRN 12% LAB 15%
Key is the return of LD votes to Lab and some to Green - which is happening Also both C and UKIP being well into the 20s which is plausible.
The SW is regarded as eurosceptic, yet return LDs who have somewhat hidden their europhilia. Clegg may have killed that bird.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Exactly.
Government also needs to be far more radical in freeing up its own land for development - they can start with the land bank that the MoD sits on.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
The concept of the thread is absolutely right. The LD switchers are absolutely nailed on for Lab. A good third of the Lib Dems' 2010 support were middle-class Guardianistas who thought they were voting for a party which was atleast as economically left-wing as Labour plus more left-wing socially. I don't think it's QUITE as simple as all of them jumping ship as soon as they got into bed with the Tories - in my experience, when in its first few days the Coalition rhetoric was all woolly and centrist and sunny and Rose Garden-y, quite a few Libs were willing to reserve judgement - certainly the Lib Dems' poll ratings held up OK for the first few weeks, and that delayed election in Thirsk & Malton actually saw the Lib Dem vote go up. What was really the final straw for those Guardianistas was when it gradually became clear that the Coalition wasn't going to be centrist at all, but was going to have a full-fat Thatcherite economic programme. In retrospect, Harriet Harman's response to that first June budget, where she really set the narrative that the Lib Dems had sold out on everything they stood for, might be the most significant event of this election cycle.
With that said, even though the LD->Lab switchers are locked down, the real issue for Labour is keeping all their 2010 voters on board. I'm still exasperated by the complacency in Labour's high command that they can take their working-class "core vote" for granted. It seems to me many of them are more disenchanted with Labour than ever, they don't think they've fought the cuts loudly enough, don't think they're particularly concerned with working-class people (and the leadership is a problem for this group -- not that they hate Ed as such, just they think he's too middle-class and doesn't understand them). But the Labour leadership still don't seem to have cottoned onto what a big problem they have with this group, as they're still so obsessed with chasing the mythical "centre ground" and rambling on about budget discipline...Ed Balls in some Guardian article this morning is again cringeworthily repeating his soundbite about "balancing the books but in a fairer way".
Agreed.Labour policy on the bedroom tax and hopefully shifting away from the dreaded WCA will help but suspending Labour candidates for saying what disabled people are feeling every day about welfare reform causing preventable deaths it shows there is some way to go before Labour is trusted to be on the side of people who have been the hardest hit.
What this site desperately needs is more articles - any articles - on the 2010 LD-Labour switchers. It's this crucial group which will decide the election.
My highly-attuned sarcasm detector just gave a little twitch. Clearly needs fixing.
Mirror has lost 66% of its circulation since 1992. Sun has lost 38% of its circulation since 1992. The Sun now has double the circulation of the Mirror.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Food stamps are thoroughly stupid, expensive and bureaucratic way of getting poor people the stuff they need. They only use them in the US as a political wheeze to get urban liberals voting for farming subsidies, and rural conservatives voting for welfare. This trade is the reason why these disparate things are both in the same bills.
There's no point in trying to do that in the EU because the member states, who are in charge of welfare, aren't in charge of agricultural subsidies, so there's no deal there to be done.
Interesting discussion of poverty, especially Twisted's thought-provoking post. ...
One of the most insightful things Nick Palmer has ever said - which stuck with me, because it's true - is that most Tory MPs have little to no real knowledge of what it's like to live on the poverty line, because most have never been there. There are of course a few exceptions.
Of course, you could say that about plenty of Labour MPs now as well. But that shouldn't detract from the main point: conservatives need to come up with a slightly better answer to the 25-30% of us who have a poor quality of life than 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. This might have worked to get a sufficient number of votes in the 1980s, with council house sales, privatisations, and the new consumer age, but the world is different now. We are now fully within the post-industrial age and globalisation is a massive challenge.
The right-wing response is much harder. It says that stronger families and communities, passing down strong parenting skills, and supporting one other, are the answer. Not the State. Cameron had a crack at trying to communicate this as the Big Society in GE2010, but it failed abysmally. Besides which it's very hard to re-establish that once the chain has been broken. This needs to happen in tandem with a strong, rigorous education system and the government doing whatever it can to help the private sector create well-paid jobs.
Nick Palmer's answer is not the answer. It requires a colossal amount of public welfare spending and redistribution, which we can't afford and would not actually solve the problem.
What I'm yet to make my mind up on yet if whether the government should do more on transport, housing, jobs and energy policy. Some ideas being to better connect the country digitally and physically, support new technology and investment in emerging industry, prioritise cheaper energy/fuels and encourage/build low-cost housing.
M. Royale
Do you realise how close your ruminations and prescriptions are to those of George Osborne in his recent AEI (IMF) speech?
If you haven't read it, it can be read online or downloaded from the Treasury site. See http://bit.ly/1hHCcMg
And hat-tip to fitalass who was the first to bring it to PB's attention.
Go out and do it, Nick! No-one should depart this green and pleasant land without having climbed a tree. For the truest joy, make it a conker tree in Autumn! In a national park!
Well, I'm willing to play a computer simulation of climbing a tree. I'm in touch with modern kids, innit. But thank you for what I read as a genuinely nice thought.
As taffys says, we all agree with Twisted but we don't quite know what to do. It's difficult, and that's why it's not been solved. I accept Casino's point that State intervention is not really the optimal instrument, and what it needs is better parenting,mutual support, etc. But we're politicians (directly of at one remove). Should the Government do anything or merely hope for the best?
My suggestion of parenting classes in schools is probably a mildly good idea, but unlikely to have a massive effect. We are all in favour of "better education" but examples of really effective schemes tend to be anecdotal and may in reality depend on the quality of teaching staff more than anything else. My Scandi-redistribution preference is expensive, as Casino says. Investing in better support - fast communication, superfast broadband - as Casino suggests may help a bit. It's a complex issue and there isn't a magic bullet.
I wonder, though, whether another key isn't better mentoring and advice. A lot of bright kids don't really know anyone who is realistically aiming high - it's not just the parents but also the schools and their friends who assume they'll end up in Tesco. A regular well-informed chat about prospects and choices - say once a month - might do rather a lot for quite a few kids.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Or reduce immigration...
Or get rid of the system where we *actively* encourage Russian and Chinese citizens to buy up property that they are not going to live in.
One way to stop the '50-inch flat screen, cider and fags' syndrome would be to pay benefits in vouchers (nappies, food, heat, light, computer time, phone time, travel etc) but I don;t see any government having the courage to do that.
Would just be sold on or traded by corner shops for other products at a discount...
I wonder what % of face value the food vouchers would trade at.
What this site desperately needs is more articles - any articles - on the 2010 LD-Labour switchers. It's this crucial group which will decide the election.
Yes after that thread and the C4 news clip about how 2010 LD voters have gone to Lab and have no intention of going back, we can then have a thread about how all the LD MPs are going to survive because of the fact that the LD 2010 voters are going to vote for them again.... Maybe they have the irish solution of voting early and often on GE day?
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.
What this site desperately needs is more articles - any articles - on the 2010 LD-Labour switchers. It's this crucial group which will decide the election.
Yes after that thread and the C4 news clip about how 2010 LD voters have gone to Lab and have no intention of going back, we can then have a thread about how all the LD MPs are going to survive because of the fact that the LD 2010 voters are going to vote for them again....
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Exactly. Government also needs to be far more radical in freeing up its own land for development - they can start with the land bank that the MoD sits on. Also make housing a cabinet post.
Agreed. Shame that Shapps clearly had wasted his time in opposition in preparing for Govt as he entered Govt without a coherent plan for housing.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Or reduce immigration...
Or get rid of the system where we *actively* encourage Russian and Chinese citizens to buy up property that they are not going to live in.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.
It's exquisite.
Just as Cam is pondering how far to the right he should tack to appease/entice the kippers, so analagously does EdM have a dilemma in how far to the left he tacks as you rightly say to shore up the disenchanted Guardianista vote.
Someone above, apols can't remember who, made the point that he thought Ed had moved sufficiently to the left.
And in the 9th dimension why wouldn't the current Lab=>LD-ers (those who have or have not yet returned =>Lab) see themselves as content? After all not too many of the Lab personalities have changed, apart from Brown/Blair, so even if EdM does tack left it is still pretty much the same beast. So they are the bold, restraining factor on the evil Tories....
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Or reduce immigration...
Or get rid of the system where we *actively* encourage Russian and Chinese citizens to buy up property that they are not going to live in.
Except, they're not buying 'affordable' housing.
It doesn't make any difference what kind of housing they buy, they remove units from the housing stock.
Say there were 100 units of housing in the UK. If one was removed, whether the most expensive or the cheapest, it would still leave only 99 for the remaining people. It is a dangerous myth that high-end demand does not affect low-end availability.
Furthermore, around St John's Wood, Hampstead, Kensington, etc., they are often buying up houses that were previously 4 or 5 two bedroom flats, and converting them to single family (rarely visited) residences. While they wait for person number three to sell out to them, the properties are typically left empty.
"it's not just the parents but also the schools and their friends who assume they'll end up in Tesco."
Nick, totally agree - but what had brought about this lack of aspiration, which was not there some 30-40 years ago - at least not in such a large way.
I have been amazed to hear teachers discouraging pupils from aspiring to go to the best universities - perhaps teaching really has become the refuge for those who cannot do.
Or is our bottom line too comfortable and discourages those who should seek work - or move to where the work is - as did many of their forefathers and do the immigrants from E Europe today.
The massive problem needs a non-political discussion - yet most of our politicians shy away from it.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.
I know you were praising Harman but it's an illusion. Her contribution to Labours present election losing position is almost so negligible as to be barely seen by the Hubble telescope.
Labour will lose because on their side memories of Labours economic mismanagement is long together with distrust of the two Eds as PM and Chancellor and on the Coalition side the economic recovery is strong and getting stronger.
In 2010 in the aftermath of the formation of the Coalition I said Cameron and Clegg were in this for the long term right down to the wire and regardless of the short and medium term troubles ahead. It is proving to be the case.
Week by week, month by month the prospect of a Labour government has and is melting away and Harriet has been and continues to be an occasional, little noticed and ineffective spectator to the process.
'What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.'
Easy when Labour is the only opposition party and was against all cuts at that time.
What do you think contributes more to the housing shortage? The relatively few properties (I'm bought and left empty by wealthy foreign buyers? Or the half a million immigrants coming here each year?
What this site desperately needs is more articles - any articles - on the 2010 LD-Labour switchers. It's this crucial group which will decide the election.
Yes after that thread and the C4 news clip about how 2010 LD voters have gone to Lab and have no intention of going back, we can then have a thread about how all the LD MPs are going to survive because of the fact that the LD 2010 voters are going to vote for them again....
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Exactly. Government also needs to be far more radical in freeing up its own land for development - they can start with the land bank that the MoD sits on. Also make housing a cabinet post.
Agreed. Shame that Shapps clearly had wasted his time in opposition in preparing for Govt as he entered Govt without a coherent plan for housing.
I agree.
Whilst the Coalition has a better record than Labour that is hardly a ringing endorsement even allowing for the hand the government were dealt.
Thinking back to my schooldays, when I went to primary school where few children passed the 11+, at least those of us still played with our former classmates for a few years, so they knew a few people whose expectations had been raised.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.
In 2010 in the aftermath of the formation of the Coalition I said Cameron and Clegg were in this for the long term right down to the wire and regardless of the short and medium term troubles ahead. It is proving to be the case.
And yet, how many predicted the Coalition wouldn't last until the Autumn, Spring 2011, Early 20122013......and so on.....
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Indeed.
Let's dramatically increase housing around such sleepy hollows as Buckingham, Beaconsfield, Witney, Newbury, Windsor etc.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.
In 2010 in the aftermath of the formation of the Coalition I said Cameron and Clegg were in this for the long term right down to the wire and regardless of the short and medium term troubles ahead. It is proving to be the case.
And yet, how many predicted the Coalition wouldn't last until the Autumn, Spring 2011, Early 20122013......and so on.....
What do you think contributes more to the housing shortage? The relatively few properties (I'm bought and left empty by wealthy foreign buyers? Or the half a million immigrants coming here each year?
Obviously the half million.
I'm just pointing out that there are many reasons for house prices rising.
My view is that - in relatively free markets - rising prices should cause more supply. We have plenty of land in the UK that could be used for housing. However, our insistence on the green belt (aka a subsidy for existing property owners), and antiquated planning laws mean that supply of residential housing extremely constrained.
The absurdity can be seen in a simple way. An office building in a converted house of 3,000 square feet just behind Grosvenor Square sells for around £3m, or around £1,000/square foot. With residential planning permission it's £6-7m. One simple planning acceptance doubles the value of a property.
In Hampstead, the former home of a union (I forget which) was bought for £8m. Converted to flats it's worth £40m. Will residential conversion consent be granted? Who knows? Locals don't want it, as it would mean that parking would be (slightly) more scarce on Arkwright Road.
Furthermore, I want to reduce market distortions. Anything which reduces the freedom of labour to go where the jobs are, or vice-versa, is a market distortion.
"it's not just the parents but also the schools and their friends who assume they'll end up in Tesco."
Nick, totally agree - but what had brought about this lack of aspiration, which was not there some 30-40 years ago - at least not in such a large way.
I have been amazed to hear teachers discouraging pupils from aspiring to go to the best universities - perhaps teaching really has become the refuge for those who cannot do.
Or is our bottom line too comfortable and discourages those who should seek work - or move to where the work is - as did many of their forefathers and do the immigrants from E Europe today.
The massive problem needs a non-political discussion - yet most of our politicians shy away from it.
Is there any evidence at all that there is less aspiration today than there was in the past?
"Could today’s effort by The Times to get UKIP have anything to with the complaint made last month by the Lib Dem MEP Edward McMillan-Scott about UKIP’s use of allowances?
His complaint was based on a series of reports by Times journalists Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thomson.
Yesterday that complaint was thrown out by a European Parliament bureau meeting that found there was no matter requiring further investigation…"
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
Electorally significant, yes. Much as anyone might like to talk up Ed Miliband (and I think he's broadly done a good job, held back by the stuck-in-a-timewarp New Labour prats in the shadow cabinet), it's hard to overlook that Labour's poll ratings now in the mid-30s were already at this level in mid-2010 when Harriet Harman handed over.
Which sound reasonable except Ed is presiding over some of the worst Labour opposition polling since Keir Hardie sniffed the wind and thought workers party time.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.
In 2010 in the aftermath of the formation of the Coalition I said Cameron and Clegg were in this for the long term right down to the wire and regardless of the short and medium term troubles ahead. It is proving to be the case.
And yet, how many predicted the Coalition wouldn't last until the Autumn, Spring 2011, Early 20122013......and so on.....
I always thought it most unlikely the Coalition would crumble given that the only return that was likely was five years down the line. What would possibly cause them to fall apart early and hand the election to Labour ?
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Indeed.
Let's dramatically increase housing around such sleepy hollows as Buckingham, Beaconsfield, Witney, Newbury, Windsor etc.
Double their size.
Newbury, HQ of Vodafone a 'sleepy hollow'? You're having a laugh.
The others are hardly 'Camberwick Green' either.
Besides, wouldn't you prefer that more homes were built further north, to encourage people and businesses to move away from the South East?
I wonder, though, whether another key isn't better mentoring and advice. A lot of bright kids don't really know anyone who is realistically aiming high - it's not just the parents but also the schools and their friends who assume they'll end up in Tesco. A regular well-informed chat about prospects and choices - say once a month - might do rather a lot for quite a few kids.
There are some fantastic organisations out there (many of which we supported through our Golden Bottle partnership). Examples worth looking at are:
Action Tutoring - one on one tutoring for kids on the D/E borderline in Maths & English (www.actiontutoring.org.uk)
Team Up - getting university students to mentor disadvantages kids (www.teamup.org.uk)
Everyday Magic - bringing storytelling into primary schools (www.everydaymagic.org.uk)
Franklin Scholars - pairing up Year 10 outperformers with Year 7 children to mentor and encourage them (www.franklinscholars.org)
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Indeed.
Let's dramatically increase housing around such sleepy hollows as Buckingham, Beaconsfield, Witney, Newbury, Windsor etc.
Double their size.
We don't need to do anything other than grant planning permission. The wonders of the free market will do the rest.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Indeed.
Let's dramatically increase housing around such sleepy hollows as Buckingham, Beaconsfield, Witney, Newbury, Windsor etc.
Double their size.
Newbury, HQ of Vodafone a 'sleepy hollow'? You're having a laugh.
The others are hardly 'Camberwick Green' either.
Have you ever been out of Kent?
Have you been to Newbury?? It's pretty darn sleepy.
Everyone should be entitled to own a house ? What price is "fair" ?
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
What is an 'affordable home' anyway?
Every home is affordable. The very definition of the market price is the one where supply meets demand.
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Indeed.
Let's dramatically increase housing around such sleepy hollows as Buckingham, Beaconsfield, Witney, Newbury, Windsor etc.
Double their size.
Newbury, HQ of Vodafone a 'sleepy hollow'? You're having a laugh.
The others are hardly 'Camberwick Green' either.
Have you ever been out of Kent?
Have you been to Newbury?? It's pretty darn sleepy.
Home to Quantel, Vodafone and a myriad of tech companies.
Quite. What a complete load of ignorant rubbish from ben.
He's clearly never visited the packed-to-the-gunnels-train stations in these towns on weekday mornings, as hard working tax-paying commuters head for their place of work.
Quite. What a complete load of ignorant rubbish from ben.
He's clearly never visited the packed-to-the-gunnels-train stations in these towns on weekday mornings, as hard working tax-paying commuters head for their place of work.
Ben's just picked some Tory leaning towns, and thought 'stick it to em'.
Comments
Didn't tony try that?
I think the answer is more 'expectation, expectation, expectation'. IE
1. Sorry kid I don't care if you were up til midnight and your mum was drunk as a skunk, you are learning this grammar. It is the only thing that's going to help you.
2. Sorry kid I don;t care if you've never met your dad and your mum's a convicted shoplifter. You ain't disrupting this classroom or behaving like a d8ck. Do I understand? no and I never will. But you still ain't allowed to behave like a tw7t.
Imagine if the poorest quarter, for argument's sake, became 25% wealthier overnight, and the richest quarter became 30% wealthier. The gap between the two would increase, but who cares? What matters is that the poorest have enough to be relatively [ahem] comfortable.
Now imagine the poorest quarter became 25% poorer, and the richest 50% poorer. That would narrow the gap between the two. Would it be a good thing?
Of course not. What matters is not the envy politics of knocking the rich, but the humane desire to see the poorest able to afford a basic standard of living without being uncertain whether they'll be able to afford the shopping next week.
The Tories have a low inflation fetish. Labour followed the same doctrine in government and can't accept it was a mistake. The Lib Dems want to make the coalition look a success so they won't rock the boat with any new ideas. Arghhhhhhhhh.
Chris Bryant worries about Ukraine and tanks...think tanks.
Are we there yet Vlad?
Lloyds Bank PLC
Barclays PLC
HSBC PLC
Standard Chartered PLC
Of those four, exactly one (Lloyds Bank) was bailed out by the tax payer in the global financial crisis.
Lloyds and Standard Chartered have - to all intents and purposes - no investment banking activities. In the latter case, tier one capital is 10.3% of assets; or to put it simply approximately a 10-1 leverage ratio. Standard Chartered has an 11.7% tier one capital ratio, or leverage of 9-1.
HSBC does have some investment banking businesses, however, they are small relative to the size of the group. It has a tier one ratio of 13.6% (leverage of 7-1). Barclays has the biggest investment banking business, but its tier one capital ratio is 15.7%. (Leverage of just 6-to-1).
If you want to look at a country where the size of banking assets totally dwarfs the local economy, you might try Switzerland instead.
He wore it in the debate with Clegg and is doing it again today.
College, the anti-establishment establishment clone!
I have two half written pieces, I'll see which one I can complete first.
http://www.ukip.org/times_story_falls_apart_as_key_source_reveals_his_responses_were_distorted_by_the_paper
You have something there, Mr. Taffys. Perhaps not in the extremes you quote, because they are too extreme except for the very, very, strong to cope with, but with the basic idea of expectation driving success. I remember reading a year or two back about a school in East London which was achieving tremendous results all based around discipline, hard work and high expectations (the opposite of what the educational establishment seems to think best).
However, until we have an education system that is fit for purpose in the 21t century we are going nowhere in terms of poverty (relative or otherwise)
Ian Birrell had a very good article in the Independent yesterday about the Lib Dems. Says he spoke to one of their most senior figures pre the 2010 election in which the person suggested that the future for the Lib Dems was along the lines of the Free Democrats in Germany. Presumably a mixture of economic and social liberalism that should prove popular to many of the metropolitan elite. However it's hard to see how a political party who's base is in provincial Britain could successfully transform itself in such a way. The strategy would appear to be to try and free ride of a naive political base in order to pursue a personal agenda.
Yup
What were you doing in Cambridge?
Buying a tie!
It was once said of the then Prime Minister: "There are more entries in Gladstone's diaries about prostitutes than there are about political hostesses, more recorded visits to the fallen women on the streets of London than recorded attendances at the balls and soirées of the grandes dames of polite Victorian society."
I suspect Berlusconi’s diaries are of a similar vein.
Can we please have PR so:
1. Parties like UKIP can have some proper representation
2. A party like the FDP can emerge
Shudder! Scream!! Nightmare!!!
"When I went to school we were taught the times tables and that £700 times 12 equals £8400 (which is not too far removed from Mr Farage’s £1000 per month) so where on earth did you come up with a figure of £3000?"
"Finally, I should point out that the Lyminster is nowhere near Bognor Regis; it is on the outskirts of Littlehampton, a fact that could have been verified by looking at an AA road atlas.
But at least we are getting somewhat closer to the relevant numbers.
This is turning into the best expenses farce yet.
Go out and do it, Nick! No-one should depart this green and pleasant land without having climbed a tree. For the truest joy, make it a conker tree in Autumn! In a national park!
Eh? Lyminster is about 8 miles from Bognor - I'd say that was pretty close.
The main mortgage and subprime losses were incurred by Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, and Halifax Bank of Scotland.
Lehman Brothers was not a British bank, and it lost its money almost entirely in US subprime. AIG was not a British bank, and almost all its losses originated in its US financial products subsidiary, writing CDS's.
Of course, you could say that about plenty of Labour MPs now as well. But that shouldn't detract from the main point: conservatives need to come up with a slightly better answer to the 25-30% of us who have a poor quality of life than 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. This might have worked to get a sufficient number of votes in the 1980s, with council house sales, privatisations, and the new consumer age, but the world is different now. We are now fully within the post-industrial age and globalisation is a massive challenge.
The right-wing response is much harder. It says that stronger families and communities, passing down strong parenting skills, and supporting one other, are the answer. Not the State. Cameron had a crack at trying to communicate this as the Big Society in GE2010, but it failed abysmally. Besides which it's very hard to re-establish that once the chain has been broken. This needs to happen in tandem with a strong, rigorous education system and the government doing whatever it can to help the private sector create well-paid jobs.
Nick Palmer's answer is not the answer. It requires a colossal amount of public welfare spending and redistribution, which we can't afford and would not actually solve the problem.
What I'm yet to make my mind up on yet if whether the government should do more on transport, housing, jobs and energy policy. Some ideas being to better connect the country digitally and physically, support new technology and investment in emerging industry, prioritise cheaper energy/fuels and encourage/build low-cost housing.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/where-have-voters-gone-2010
Parties react to events. The Lib Dems uneasy coalition between by wooly liberals and classical liberals was always going to be a serious issue for them if they ever attained any degree of power. It may be possible for it to continue in the future, it may not. PR would at least allow parties to be more honest in their presentation.
They will, provided the sum of the integer multiples of their vote obtained by the top three parties is less than 6.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/north-korean-embassy-targeted-london-hairdresser-over-kim-jongun-discount-deal-9261686.html
Also very tickled to find out that the NK embassy is a semi-detached house in Gunnersbury. Must be an interesting place to live next to...
Only because you don't understand the Sussex scale of distances. Under the Sussex Scale Lyminster is as close to Bognor Regis as it is to London. Thirty-odd years ago when I married and we bought a house in Littlehampton, Lyminster was regarded as somewhere very separate, not quite 12 toes territory but close (had a very nice pub by the railway crossing though).
Let me try and translate the distance issue into terms that Londoners will understand. What is the distance between Wandsworth and Shoreditch? About 9 miles. Get my point?
Smith's definition of what constituted relative poverty is clear from the examples he chose. He's citing people without shoes or a minimal standard of clothing. There can be no doubt that that is poor, so while it's relative, it's also absolute. That is a long way from assuming that if he were here today, he'd agree that having the wrong trainers or a 40" rather than a 50" TV is the equivalent level of deprivation. My children get museum outings instead of either of those things, so on some definitions they're also poor. In the past, when I've been out of work, I've been poor.
There comes a level at which what a poor person has is so far beyond the minimum that people immigrate in order to be poor by that standard. We saw this with America in the 19th century and we're seeing it with Britain today. I'd be thrilled to be on 60% of the median wage in Monaco.
Any percentage of any wage measure is simply a definition of inequality. I don't think Adam Smith ever argued for that to be abolished.
New York is a long way from Bognor. Lyminster isn't.
Hard to believe that the UKIP bloke is going all swivel eyed over that.
UKIP >=30% and LDs <10% are the realistic conditions for it...
What sort of liberal would best describe your father ?
With that said, even though the LD->Lab switchers are locked down, the real issue for Labour is keeping all their 2010 voters on board. I'm still exasperated by the complacency in Labour's high command that they can take their working-class "core vote" for granted. It seems to me many of them are more disenchanted with Labour than ever, they don't think they've fought the cuts loudly enough, don't think they're particularly concerned with working-class people (and the leadership is a problem for this group -- not that they hate Ed as such, just they think he's too middle-class and doesn't understand them). But the Labour leadership still don't seem to have cottoned onto what a big problem they have with this group, as they're still so obsessed with chasing the mythical "centre ground" and rambling on about budget discipline...Ed Balls in some Guardian article this morning is again cringeworthily repeating his soundbite about "balancing the books but in a fairer way".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-570million-housing-scheme-builds-3414689#ixzz2yxE6uMsI
Think they tried this in East Germany in the 1970s.
Any poster who thinks anything Harriet Harman has said is the equivalent of or in the vicinity of :
" .... the most significant event of this election cycle."
deserves a spot on any nationwide comedy tour.
(Besides, Labour did F All to improve the availability of housing during their time in office. Quite the opposite in fact, as they inflated the credit bubble. Their concerns now are laughable).
Agreed.
The standard reported recently that 250 tower blocks are being planned in London alone, and these are 80% residential.
Of course, plenty of wealthy leftie luvvies have been moaning about the impact on London's skyline...
You might personally not be able to afford a house. But then again, you probably aren't able to afford a Ferrari either.
If you want to ensure that house prices are affordable to more people, then the simplest and least market distorting way to achieve that is to dramatically reduce the barriers to home building, and therefore increase the supply of housing.
Perhaps it was because I was supporting the Tories last time round but now I'm not anymore as I've despaired of them and will support UKIP next time, but I think there is more to it than that, it just dosent seem as friendly anymore.
C 25%, UKIP 27% LD 11% GRN 12% LAB 15%
Key is the return of LD votes to Lab and some to Green - which is happening
Also both C and UKIP being well into the 20s which is plausible.
The SW is regarded as eurosceptic, yet return LDs who have somewhat hidden their europhilia. Clegg may have killed that bird.
Government also needs to be far more radical in freeing up its own land for development - they can start with the land bank that the MoD sits on.
Also make housing a cabinet post.
Sun has lost 38% of its circulation since 1992.
The Sun now has double the circulation of the Mirror.
See Yglesias:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/snap_reform_give_the_poor_money_not_food_stamps.html
There's no point in trying to do that in the EU because the member states, who are in charge of welfare, aren't in charge of agricultural subsidies, so there's no deal there to be done.
Do you realise how close your ruminations and prescriptions are to those of George Osborne in his recent AEI (IMF) speech?
If you haven't read it, it can be read online or downloaded from the Treasury site. See http://bit.ly/1hHCcMg
And hat-tip to fitalass who was the first to bring it to PB's attention.
As taffys says, we all agree with Twisted but we don't quite know what to do. It's difficult, and that's why it's not been solved. I accept Casino's point that State intervention is not really the optimal instrument, and what it needs is better parenting,mutual support, etc. But we're politicians (directly of at one remove). Should the Government do anything or merely hope for the best?
My suggestion of parenting classes in schools is probably a mildly good idea, but unlikely to have a massive effect. We are all in favour of "better education" but examples of really effective schemes tend to be anecdotal and may in reality depend on the quality of teaching staff more than anything else. My Scandi-redistribution preference is expensive, as Casino says. Investing in better support - fast communication, superfast broadband - as Casino suggests may help a bit. It's a complex issue and there isn't a magic bullet.
I wonder, though, whether another key isn't better mentoring and advice. A lot of bright kids don't really know anyone who is realistically aiming high - it's not just the parents but also the schools and their friends who assume they'll end up in Tesco. A regular well-informed chat about prospects and choices - say once a month - might do rather a lot for quite a few kids.
Ed is the leader and the buck stops full square with him.
Just as Cam is pondering how far to the right he should tack to appease/entice the kippers, so analagously does EdM have a dilemma in how far to the left he tacks as you rightly say to shore up the disenchanted Guardianista vote.
Someone above, apols can't remember who, made the point that he thought Ed had moved sufficiently to the left.
And in the 9th dimension why wouldn't the current Lab=>LD-ers (those who have or have not yet returned =>Lab) see themselves as content? After all not too many of the Lab personalities have changed, apart from Brown/Blair, so even if EdM does tack left it is still pretty much the same beast. So they are the bold, restraining factor on the evil Tories....
Say there were 100 units of housing in the UK. If one was removed, whether the most expensive or the cheapest, it would still leave only 99 for the remaining people. It is a dangerous myth that high-end demand does not affect low-end availability.
Furthermore, around St John's Wood, Hampstead, Kensington, etc., they are often buying up houses that were previously 4 or 5 two bedroom flats, and converting them to single family (rarely visited) residences. While they wait for person number three to sell out to them, the properties are typically left empty.
"it's not just the parents but also the schools and their friends who assume they'll end up in Tesco."
Nick, totally agree - but what had brought about this lack of aspiration, which was not there some 30-40 years ago - at least not in such a large way.
I have been amazed to hear teachers discouraging pupils from aspiring to go to the best universities - perhaps teaching really has become the refuge for those who cannot do.
Or is our bottom line too comfortable and discourages those who should seek work - or move to where the work is - as did many of their forefathers and do the immigrants from E Europe today.
The massive problem needs a non-political discussion - yet most of our politicians shy away from it.
Labour will lose because on their side memories of Labours economic mismanagement is long together with distrust of the two Eds as PM and Chancellor and on the Coalition side the economic recovery is strong and getting stronger.
In 2010 in the aftermath of the formation of the Coalition I said Cameron and Clegg were in this for the long term right down to the wire and regardless of the short and medium term troubles ahead. It is proving to be the case.
Week by week, month by month the prospect of a Labour government has and is melting away and Harriet has been and continues to be an occasional, little noticed and ineffective spectator to the process.
'What?? I was praising Harman (and implicitly criticising Ed) -- saying virtually all of the gains that Labour currently have in the polls, which have put them in an election-winning position, can be credited to Harman's leadership in 2010.'
Easy when Labour is the only opposition party and was against all cuts at that time.
What do you think contributes more to the housing shortage? The relatively few properties (I'm bought and left empty by wealthy foreign buyers? Or the half a million immigrants coming here each year?
Whilst the Coalition has a better record than Labour that is hardly a ringing endorsement even allowing for the hand the government were dealt.
The report card reads - "Must and can do better"
Let's dramatically increase housing around such sleepy hollows as Buckingham, Beaconsfield, Witney, Newbury, Windsor etc.
Double their size.
I'm just pointing out that there are many reasons for house prices rising.
My view is that - in relatively free markets - rising prices should cause more supply. We have plenty of land in the UK that could be used for housing. However, our insistence on the green belt (aka a subsidy for existing property owners), and antiquated planning laws mean that supply of residential housing extremely constrained.
The absurdity can be seen in a simple way. An office building in a converted house of 3,000 square feet just behind Grosvenor Square sells for around £3m, or around £1,000/square foot. With residential planning permission it's £6-7m. One simple planning acceptance doubles the value of a property.
In Hampstead, the former home of a union (I forget which) was bought for £8m. Converted to flats it's worth £40m. Will residential conversion consent be granted? Who knows? Locals don't want it, as it would mean that parking would be (slightly) more scarce on Arkwright Road.
Furthermore, I want to reduce market distortions. Anything which reduces the freedom of labour to go where the jobs are, or vice-versa, is a market distortion.
His complaint was based on a series of reports by Times journalists Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thomson.
Yesterday that complaint was thrown out by a European Parliament bureau meeting that found there was no matter requiring further investigation…"
http://order-order.com/2014/04/15/previous-times-ukip-allowances-report-dismissed/
The others are hardly 'Camberwick Green' either.
Besides, wouldn't you prefer that more homes were built further north, to encourage people and businesses to move away from the South East?
Action Tutoring - one on one tutoring for kids on the D/E borderline in Maths & English (www.actiontutoring.org.uk)
Team Up - getting university students to mentor disadvantages kids (www.teamup.org.uk)
Everyday Magic - bringing storytelling into primary schools (www.everydaymagic.org.uk)
Franklin Scholars - pairing up Year 10 outperformers with Year 7 children to mentor and encourage them (www.franklinscholars.org)
Quite. What a complete load of ignorant rubbish from ben.
He's clearly never visited the packed-to-the-gunnels-train stations in these towns on weekday mornings, as hard working tax-paying commuters head for their place of work.
Typical spite from 'One Nation Labour'.