Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mike Nattrass’s breakaway party could win 5% or more of the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mike Nattrass’s breakaway party could win 5% or more of the Euro votes putting it in fifth place
So far, however, the pollsters have yet to catch up with the possible impact of the party formed by the ex-Ukip deputy leader, Mike Nattrass, which will appear at or near the top, of every ballot paper in England under the name “An Independence from Europe – UK Independence Now“. This is a form of words that many voters will find confusing.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
hmmm
first!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100269687/nigel-farage-will-pay-the-price-for-taking-the-british-public-for-fools/
"In an interim report, based on 13 forces, inspectors found “significant under-recording of crime”, including for sexual offences, violence and burglary, and warned 20 per cent of offences may be going unrecorded."
"Inspectors also found that 13 per cent of out-of-court penalties, including cautions and on-the-spot fines, were inappropriate because of the criminal’s offending history and they should have been taken to court."
Frit Farage bottled it yesterday no matter what he says. Would be ironic if the prick which bursts his bubble has come from within his own party as a result of his ego overstretching itself.
I feel sorry for the decent kippers on here like Sean F, Mike K and others who are clearly decent chaps that they are associated with this endless stream of racist, sexist, homophobic rants coming from leading Kippers. These fine PBers are welcome back in the Tory Party when they realise why UKIP will not realise their aspirations.
I'm not sure about Mike's contention that the Lib Dems will beat the Greens. While the Lib Dems have been polling quite well for the European elections, the similarity between their figures for Westminster and Europe (both around 10%) gives me cause for concern.
It *may* be that the LDs have sunk so far that they're now propped up solely by their core vote which is itself more keen to vote and as such the lower turnout offsets defections to minor parties that PR and the "protest election" nature of the Euros encourages. But I doubt it: IIRC, the Lib Dems only took about 14% last time, which was about ten points lower than their score in the locals on the same day and comfortably below their Westminster VI at the time. I think they'll do well to hit 8% this time round, which should put them roughly level pegging with the Greens, though both should be ahead of AIFE.
When i read the title of the thread, I thought it was going to be a serious article based on an opinion poll or specific research, but instead it is a completely spurious theory based on the fact that the Lit Dem candidate in Devon got 5% of the votes in 1994 (in fact it was substantially less than 5%). Unlike some people, I prefer to adhere to the theory that the VMOOND is *not* in fact stupid. And by "VM" I mean substantially more than the 95% implied by the article.
(Acronym: VMOOND = Ast Ajority F Rdinary Ormal Ecent (people) ).
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.
They have just issued a "landmark" report with KPMG looking at the fundamentals of the problem with solutions.
See http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/NewsReleases/Pages/Fix-our-housing-shortage-or-see-house-prices-quadruple-in-just-twenty-years.aspx
Titter.
It is both astonishing and depressing that (a) the party that can come up with this tosh was in power until relatively recently so they really should not be so divorced from reality and (b) they look increasingly likely to be back in power again in 2015. Swingback just isn't happening despite the economic news and the clock is ticking.
The former is better from the point of view of ensuring that ballot order does not influence the result, but it makes it a lot harder for the ballot papers to be counted.
It calls on politicians to commit to an integrated range of key measures, including:
Giving planning authorities the power to create ‘New Homes Zones’ that would drive forward the development of new homes. Combined with infrastructure, this would be led by local authorities, the private sector and local communities, and self-financed by sharing in the rising value of the land.
Unlocking stalled sites to speed up development and stop land being left dormant, by charging council tax on the homes that should have been built after a reasonable period for construction has passed.
Introducing a new National Housing Investment Bank to provide low cost, long term loans for housing providers, as part of a programme of innovative ways to finance affordable house building.
Helping small builders to get back into the house building market by using government guarantees to improve access to finance.
Fully integrating new homes with local infrastructure and putting housing at the very centre of City Deals, to make sure towns and cities have the power to build the homes their communities need
PS. No one from your party has any right to talk about homophobia in other parties as long as Councillor Ken Gregory remains a member of your party.
Or are all landlords "slum landlords" and all letting agents crooks?
Which would at least be entertaining.
One idea we came up with during a drinking session a few years ago was that you should have three columns randomising the name, party and 3 key policies of each candidate. Your vote would only count if you matched the three correctly for your chosen candidate.
Totally impractical of course but it does have the benefit of ensuring voters knew at least a little something about who they were electing.
RIP Ayrton Senna, twenty years ago today. I remember watching the race, and the feeling of rising horror as I realised that what seemed to be a minor shunt was serious. Trusting in the Prof, without really realising that some things were even beyond him.
RIP also Roland Ratzenberger, who died the day before.
And Barrichello was lucky not to make it three that weekend.
I'll raise a glass to their memory this evening.
Not all landlords
This is from 2011
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/05/slum-landlords-tenants-in-squalor
If you want, I will find you the latest ones showing "landlords" creating "flats" inside factories?
Or even better, do your own research instead.
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.
But I'm sure it will be popular with the voting public.
Is St Boba the patron of lost causes ?
Most of all, it's communities we need to build, not houses. The last point goes slightly towards that, but not far enough.
Developers also need to be forced to keep to their Section 106 agreements in a timely and accurate manner. Don't allow developers to start a new development until all S106 milestones on current developments have been fulfilled, as long as there are no external dependencies.
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Is your property portfolio doing well these days?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-farage-has-bottled-his-byelection-chance-and-ukip-is-over-9308526.html
I like this fellow Nattrass. Looks if he might be able to place an apostrophe.
If it weren't for George's unparalleled success on the economy, Nattrass would definitely be getting my vote.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
It will be very entertaining to watch the usual suspects gnash on here - usually, as you have recognised, that's the sign of a good policy.
Worse than this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27123966
pic.twitter.com/V8DRmizfl0
It's very entertaining to watch the usual suspects on here slurping up Miliband's dribblings and proclaiming them as good without applying any mental effort.
As it happens, these proposals would have absolutely no effect on me. I chose to sell my spare London flat last year rather than continue renting it out because I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of renting out, even though it might well have been financially the better option for me. That's a real life example of the way that property owners think.
My other properties are fortunately beyond the reach of Ed Miliband's ambition.
Now, try engaging with the argument.
The slums are owned by councils and housing associations. Often through no fault of their own mind.
Ed's proposals don't even address this sector of the housing market.
It is the successful shop owner who bought a flat in a stucco sea-front conversion in Worthing for his ailing mother-in-law who then sadly passed away who will be hit. The students who took over the tenancy will be out on their butts. Just one more worry for them while struggling with tuition fee loans.
Ed really doesn't think his policies through, does he?
But will suddenly obey Miliband's new ones?
If rents are at market value, what is the point of the proposals? The best way of increasing the choices for renters is to increase the supply. Let's see what Labour have to say on that aspect.
And as people explained yesterday, it is very likely that this change will reduce the amount of rental properties. As there will probably not be a decrease in demand, this may lead to more of the above abuses.
That means, to me at least, that it's not someone trying to take UKIP votes, but someone who wants to be in the EU Parliament.
All power to his elbow.
When was the last time anyone here was on their beam end and had to practically beg for accommodation?
I would hazard a guess at very few, but you are all experts, and therefore can state categorically that there is no problem. no hunger, no poverty, only the idle shiftless people trying to wrest the last case of champagne from your grasp.
Try and broaden your minds a little.
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
That seems to be the primary complaint that you have.
So instead of a vague appeal to emotion, why not say precisely what problems it is meant to be solving, and perhaps we can make progress.
I'm not standing for election so even were I a raving hypocrite on the subject it would be completely irrelevant. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.
Odious vermin of all political parties seem to think that referring to my personal life is somehow going to add to political discussion. They shouldn't be surprised if in turn they then get invited to crawl back under the rock from whence they came.
As mentioned downthread, the FTT is not something in accordance with the single market. It's just one more reason we should leave (yes, leaving would not end the FTT, but it would stop us being members of a club with supposedly equal treatment, with billions of pounds in entry fees yet a willingness by the club to try and damage our financial services industry).
You posted an article which complained about a family having to live in a yacht on the Thames. It even has its own power supply and the interior decoration of wooden doors on the ceiling is the kind of post-modern ironic chic which gets featured in the World of Interiors.
None of this "idle shiftless people wresting the last case of champagne from our grasp". Some of us hard working Tories can't afford a sailing dinghy let alone a sixty foot yacht which sleeps 32.
Please show some restraint.
Yes, they are all illegal, and enforcement would be a good idea, fortunately for those landlords that don't wish to obey the law have seen enforcement cut in the name of austerity. Plus all those cleaners and minions that serve the great London money machine can at least get to work for a pittance, so not many of the rich and powerfull are going to look too hard.
So I have no love for slum landlords and a lot of gratitude to the council which helped us. And it is one reason why I determined never to rent, if I could possibly avoid it.
But imposing controls which create a disincentive for good landlords to keep the property in good repair because they are prevented from getting a good return on their investment is not going to resolve these sorts of problems.
I will need to read it in more detail beyond a skim but it is superficially attractive (superficially as in on first reading, I'm not awake enough to notice flaws).
It is of course an administrative rather than market-based solution which in principle I would disagree with, but then I am a Tory.
And someone mentioned rent levels and they would look to RICS for appropriate guidance - they might go up, down or stay the same.
press.labour.org.uk/post/84352297129/ed-miliband-launches-election-campaign-with-rents
" They shouldn't be surprised if in turn they then get invited to crawl back under the rock from whence they came. "
OK. How much will you charge for this rock, and do I need to pay a non returnable deposit?
And BTW, there were plenty of examples of this before 2008. It hasn't just sprung up in the last few years.
It's a cheap trick by a bitter ex. OGH really is blind when it comes to ukip, it horrible to witness.
But If this fellow does achieve a decent result, the bigger picture is that us kippers should be pleased. The total of this jokers vote added to the real ukip score would be the true reflection of how fed up people are with the EU and the establishment
Like any price ceiling, Labour’s pledge will reduce available supply, as rents are capped below their market level. Economists call such policies rent controls, and they are a rare area of academic consensus.
A 2012 poll of influential economists found that 95 per cent believed they had a negative impact where applied locally, in cities like New York and San Francisco. Miliband is proposing to roll out that failure at the national level.
http://www.cityam.com/article/1398915439/miliband-s-swipe-landlords-no-comfort-uk-renters
Those laws were introduced to stop people being exploited, what Ed is arguing for is that their scope needs to be increased, and hopefully better enforced.
The counter argument is to do away with all the laws, and have a race to the most profitable bottom.
That said I am concerned by him collecting to his cause former UKIP members who have been kicked out for racism or homophobia. It rather undermines his position.
So you would disagree with more or less everyone and say that the rise in the ukip vote is down to the public liking the establishment and voting for a party it considers part of it?
Perhaps you, or Bobawhat can explain how Miliband's proposal will increase supply of rental property, thus driving down prices?
Rather than the opposite effect?
So what problem(s) are they meant to solve?
The alternative is not "no laws". The alternative is to have well targeted, well thought out laws that deal with the real problem and don't make it worse. We will need to see the detail of what Labour propose but previous experience of rent controls in this country, let alone elsewhere, strongly suggests that there will be unintended and harmful consequences, which will harm the very people Labour want to help.
Scotland introduced a compulsory registration scheme for all private landlords a decade ago. Each landlord has to register with each local authority in which they rent property. Prior to registering them, the local authority carries out checks including PNC and can refuse registration. The cost is around £60 per property every 3 years.
The Local Authority has the right to carry out random inspections and all Landlords have to issue tenants with a pack at the commencement of the lease. It is an offence for the landlord to charge the tenant for various expenses e.g. cost of preparing the lease. There is a statutory standard of wind and watertight condition and basic standard of habitation. Every landlord has to provide an EPC certificate which sets out how good the property is at heat retention and energy use, following a statutory scale. They can only be prepared by a regulated person, usually a chartered surveyor and cost around £120.
I had a new tenant move in yesterday and had to provide all of the above. As for rogue landlords, well in the past year, several have been given an opportunity to assess the provision of Her Majesty's services having been sent to jail for breaching the aforementioned regulations.
I read the other day a disturbing suggestion, a repeated one (which I don't think is particularly party political in nature) that some want de jure marriage to occur without a ceremony.
Basically, if two people live together for X years and then split up, they would have to divide assets as if they were married. It's completely ****ing insane to have the state effectively force marriage on people and then give someone property rights over another for no good reason.
*He was a historian in the 4th century AD who attacked Julian the Apostate, of whom he was usually a supporter, for proposing state-determined commodity prices which, AMmianus said, were well-known to cause shortages of supply and more harm than good.
I apologize for missing your post, I shall now go back and re read it. (Vanilla is like that at times)
Many in the media could get behind Miliband's energy madness because they are not energy companies. I wonder how many in the media, on left and right, have property portfolios?
In other news, Pope unearthed as Catholic, PB Tories found to screech.
Nothing wrong with three year rental contracts provided they are entered into freely by both parties. Nothing wrong with fixed rents or pre-agreed review dates and adjustment formulae. Such forward fixes are widely available as an option in the mortgage market.
But forcing parties into fixed terms, imposing rent controls and limiting agency fees is curtailing freedom and reducing flexibility and choice. It has also proven in the past to generate economic side effects which distort the markets and negate the original policy intentions.
The UK is not North Korea nor are we still living in the 1970s.
The analysis also discloses that by 2014/15 the top 1 per cent of earners will pay 27.4 per cent of Britain’s tax bill, compared to 21.4 per cent a decade ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10799278/Higher-rate-payers-shoulder-two-thirds-of-Britains-tax-burden.html
There should be no suggestion that a fair rent should not be charged, and if it were so I would oppose it.
What any law should do though is to stop your "b*stard" landlord from exploiting people for so long.
Answer came there none......
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
"The analysis also discloses that by 2014/15 the top 1 per cent of earners will pay 27.4 per cent of Britain’s tax bill, compared to 21.4 per cent a decade ago"
Got any figures for how much their overall wealth has increased in that time?
....Or indeed, have you any idea just how much of the countries wealth they own?
(graphs and sheets available on request)
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html
When we rented two properties in the Southampton area, we had firemen come round shortly after we moved in to the properties. In each case he came around and checked fire compliance; in the second house he suggested a couple of things which the landlady immediately implemented.
It was a great idea. Sadly we've never had the same here in Cambridgeshire.
The PB Tories, of course, also oppose that. Just like Nimby Tories in rural areas with plenty of land oppose pretty much any proposal to build new houses anywhere near them.
The PB Tories have declared it so.