"Annual house price growth reaches double-digits A spring surge in April pushed house prices up 11pc in a year, the first double-digit measure since 2010"
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
It would appear Mick has been caught by the spam trap in the same way that Richard Tyndall and others have been, where it looks like your comments aren't appearing, then you retry and vanilla/askimet (the spam catcher) marks you down as a spammer for posting the same comment more than a couple of times in a short space of time.
If this happens to anyone, send a message to PBModerator via the vanilla messaging system and we will rectify it.
It can take anywhere from 5 mins to a few hours for vanilla to update itself once we've rectified it.
Well quite. And we have Nick Palmer speculating below that the sharks might be driven out of the market. Of course, it will instead be the amateurs who are more likely to decide to sell rather than rent properties out - the couples who have moved in together and who find themselves with a spare property, the children who have inherited a property and who are deciding what to do with it. The additional hassle, the time commitment and the asymmetric risks will push more of them into shrinking the rental market.
The other thing we'd see is that those landlords who do take the risk of staying in the market will be incredibly picky in who they accept as tenants - last time, the general view was that it was safe only to let only to companies on behalf of foreign executives, who could be relied upon not to overstay and who probably wouldn't try to abuse their position.
The private rental market is not working for tenants and it creates a lot of grievances.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
The Tories on here have never welcomed a Labour policy with open arms, at least to my memory. They just wait until the government copies the policy, then change their view.
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
Plenty will have postal votes, plus the longer it gets left the more other campaigns have to get established. I think the timing is as good as can be.
Are there local elections in Newark this May?
When you asked yesterday I checked the BBC's electoral page and found no mention of Newark wards for local/CC or directly elected Mayors.
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
Salmond does appear to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to homophobes, doesn't he?
Once again more lies
I could swear he was saying nice things about that well known gay-rights champion, Vladimir Putin the other day......
The 1999 Euros took place a few weeks after the local elections and the result was a disastrously low turnout of 23%. Voters strongly dislike having to visit the polling stations more than once in a short space of time:
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.
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.
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.
The PB Tories have declared it so.
Unfortunately your continual resort to 'pb tories' 'screech', etc, etc simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork - blind loyalty to the Miliband posterior and a complete failure to address any of the questions you are being asked.
Bobafret should stick to posting about fancy haircuts, which his 'staff' can't afford.
Another of your weird obsessions.
You were the one who posted about it all day......
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
Plenty will have postal votes, plus the longer it gets left the more other campaigns have to get established. I think the timing is as good as can be.
Are there local elections in Newark this May?
Appears not, Newark and Sherwood DC elect by wholes every 4 years, last was in 2011.
The Tories on here have never welcomed a Labour policy with open arms, at least to my memory. They just wait until the government copies the policy, then change their view.
There is only one housing policy that any party needs to introduce: build more homes.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
It would appear Mick has been caught by the spam trap in the same way that Richard Tyndall and others have been, where it looks like your comments aren't appearing, then you retry and vanilla/askimet (the spam catcher) marks you down as a spammer for posting the same comment more than a couple of times in a short space of time.
If this happens to anyone, send a message to PBModerator via the vanilla messaging system and we will rectify it.
It can take anywhere from 5 mins to a few hours for vanilla to update itself once we've rectified it.
That's a bit like saying Man U have been doing really well since Giggs took over. Manufacturing still hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008.
George Osborne even crapper than Brown and Darling who'd have thunk it ?
Rather, that's a bit like saying manager Giggs is to blame for United's shite season.
That manufacturing hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008 is hardly the fault of someone who wasn't in post until 9 quarters later. How does it look compared to the day he took the job? That is surely the metric to use. That - and direction of travel.
No fan of Osborne, certainly as a possible PM, but I have to concede he has a done a damn fine job as Chancellor.
He's only done half the job, his efforts on structural reform have been negligible. I was enjoying Avery's spiel yesterday quoting money flying in all directions. It was kaleidoscope economics, a few turns of the screw and the picture looks different, but it still consists of the same pieces. It hasn't actually changed.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
I was browsing the twitter feed of one of the Survation bods the other day (before the recent UKIP++ polls) and he was saying that despite all the polls showing Labour likely-winners of the EU Parliament elections, none of the pollsters believed it; they felt it was an error in their methodology somewhere.
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
Plenty will have postal votes, plus the longer it gets left the more other campaigns have to get established. I think the timing is as good as can be.
Are there local elections in Newark this May?
Appears not, Newark and Sherwood DC elect by wholes every 4 years, last was in 2011.
They had the Notts county council elections last year, which I used to get a result for the Newark constituency.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
"Annual house price growth reaches double-digits A spring surge in April pushed house prices up 11pc in a year, the first double-digit measure since 2010"
So now we have one Tory poster accusing Miliband of "crypto-communism" and another describing it as a likely "unmitigated disaster".
Given the signs, it can surely only be a matter of weeks before the government adopts the measure...
Did any legal people have a view on my post last night as to where this leaves BTL mortgages which require ASTs of no more than a year?
BTL mortgages which have such clauses would be omitted from the policy:
There would be a provision that allowed landlords to enter into shorter contracts where they are contractually obliged to do so as part of a buy to let mortgage entered into before the start of this new legislation.
Rent controls... I await the detail but rent controls are almost economics 101 of how well intentioned policy leads to negative outcomes. This is exactly the same mistake Milband made in energy. It's just going to disincentivise new construction which we so desperately need.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
It will be interesting to see the press reaction if UKIP do not come first now.
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
Weren't the 11 and 9 point leads for UKIP in the 10/10 certain to vote category?
UKIP are still 4 points clear in the 10/10 to vote yougov
Rent control is a tricky one. Is this really what Labour is proposing? I genuinely do not know. As I understand it - and I could be wrong - what they are looking to restrict is the ability to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant. That is not the same as telling the landlord what he can charge in the first place. If I am right, perhaps a fairer way of putting it would be rental rate rise control.
If that's what he's proposing then it's just going to mean everyone sits tight, dependent on their existing landlord, because if they ever moved they'd suddenly have to pay the market rate. The landlords will know this and be able to treat them like shit. Also, it will completely put landlords off maintaining their flats to a decent standard, because the rental return won't be worth the cost. It's absurd. If you have a problem with high prices due to fundamentals (which is definitely the case in housing), then the right solution is to address the fundamentals. Either we need to increase the supply of housing, or reduce the demand for it by curbing immigration. However, both are politically difficult, so Miliband has just opted for something that won't actually work because at least he gets his headline.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
I was browsing the twitter feed of one of the Survation bods the other day (before the recent UKIP++ polls) and he was saying that despite all the polls showing Labour likely-winners of the EU Parliament elections, none of the pollsters believed it; they felt it was an error in their methodology somewhere.
I think UKIP will win the Euros for the following reasons
1) Higher/Differential turnout among Kippers which pollsters are trying to capture with their certainty to vote adjustments
2) Most European election polls are usually preceded by Westminster VI questions so that on some unconscious level has a way of influencing the Euros VI responses. If you look at yesterday's Euro polls they didn't have Westminster VI questions, and guess what, they had huge UKIP leads.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
It will be interesting to see the press reaction if UKIP do not come first now.
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
I've already got my thread ready if UKIP don't win.
Success = Performance minus anticipation.
Farage and UKIP need to improve their expectations management, instead of talking about Earthquakes, he should have been pointing no party other than Lab or the Tories have finished first in a nationwide election in the last 104 years.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
Why are the words "straw" and "man" coming to mind?
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
That would be quite funny, Southam, if it were not for the fact that this is not some hypothetical discussion, but a discussion about something which has already been tried in the UK, and which led to exactly what I described.
By all means ignore this point. Just don't object when I say 'I told you so' in a few years time.
I could swear he was saying nice things about that well known gay-rights champion, Vladimir Putin the other day......
Didn't you know that it's a requirement before joining the Illuminati that you have to be nice about Vlad?
"For the record I am disgusted by the actions of Vladimir Putin. He manipulated the constitution to keep himself in power, he implicitly endorses the killing of journalists, he supresses gays and is both flouting international law and threatening a European war over Ukraine. If I were asked today for my view, that is what I would say with the caveat that his style of leadership plays to an instinct in the Russian psyche that warms to ‘strong’ leadership and feels more confident with him in the Kremlin.
Salmond may have slipped when he tried for balance in his reported remarks to GQ but does anyone think Salmond is anti-gay – having just brought in gay marriage – that he supresses opposition, silences journalists or threatens war? This retrospective tirade sounds like the last one…what was it?…his hotel expenses. I suspect that people who haven’t even read what he said are baying for blood because ‘he’s siding with Putin’.
I am I suppose being an apologist for him since, on reading his remarks, it is clear to me what he was trying to impart but you have to try to find the real meaning first. And the truth as we know is that across our media there is virtually no one prepared to do that. However, when that bias extends to ignoring George Roberton’s call for Putin and Russia to be included in NATO in order to treat them as a friendly nation in a formal defence alliance, you have wonder why not. Robertson is going much further than Salmond’s off-the-cuff remarks and proposing sharing our national defence so much do we trust Putin.
Why is there no mention of the British approach to Putin to back their fight against Scottish independence? That too goes much further than Salmond by proposing a political alliance with Putin. Are neither of these points relevant?And in case you’ve forgotten, other leaders have been happy to endorse Vladimir more heartily than Salmond.
Tony Blair said he was ‘open and forward looking and a moderniser’. Obama says he did ‘extraordinary work’ for the Russian people. Sarkozy said he was a ‘courageous, determined man capable of accepting and understanding.’ And, sorry Vladimir, but here’s George Bush: ‘I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country…I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.’"
The Tories on here have never welcomed a Labour policy with open arms, at least to my memory. They just wait until the government copies the policy, then change their view.
You realise there are people other than Tories criticising this? It's like when Russia has a go at past US behaviour to say it can't criticise its imperialism in Ukraine. Well what about all the other countries criticising...
Rent control is a tricky one. Is this really what Labour is proposing? I genuinely do not know. As I understand it - and I could be wrong - what they are looking to restrict is the ability to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant. That is not the same as telling the landlord what he can charge in the first place. If I am right, perhaps a fairer way of putting it would be rental rate rise control.
If that's what he's proposing then it's just going to mean everyone sits tight, dependent on their existing landlord, because if they ever moved they'd suddenly have to pay the market rate. The landlords will know this and be able to treat them like shit. Also, it will completely put landlords off maintaining their flats to a decent standard, because the rental return won't be worth the cost. It's absurd. If you have a problem with high prices due to fundamentals (which is definitely the case in housing), then the right solution is to address the fundamentals. Either we need to increase the supply of housing, or reduce the demand for it by curbing immigration. However, both are politically difficult, so Miliband has just opted for something that won't actually work because at least he gets his headline.
They are promising to build 200,000 new houses a year as well, I believe. But, I agree, there are serious flaws in the plans which demonstrate the current Labour leadership's lack of familiarity with market economics. However, it's good to get a debate going on this as it is a serious problem for a lot of people. Perhaps better solutions will emerge.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
I was browsing the twitter feed of one of the Survation bods the other day (before the recent UKIP++ polls) and he was saying that despite all the polls showing Labour likely-winners of the EU Parliament elections, none of the pollsters believed it; they felt it was an error in their methodology somewhere.
I think UKIP will win the Euros for the following reasons
1) Higher/Differential turnout among Kippers which pollsters are trying to capture with their certainty to vote adjustments
2) Most European election polls are usually preceded by Westminster VI questions so that on some unconscious level has a way of influencing the Euros VI responses. If you look at yesterday's Euro polls they didn't have Westminster VI questions, and guess what, they had huge UKIP leads.
UKIP lead by 4 in certain to vote
You are more experienced at reading polling data than me, I am relative novice. So can you help please?
On page five of the data, there is a heading Politcal Party Identification
UKIP aren't listed, and others is weighted from 133 to 44.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
Sadly it would be less dramatic. EdM would a boringly predictable failure like Hollande.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
It will be interesting to see the press reaction if UKIP do not come first now.
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
I've already got my thread ready if UKIP don't win.
Success = Performance minus anticipation.
Farage and UKIP need to improve their expectations management, instead of talking about Earthquakes, he should have been pointing no party other than Lab or the Tories have finished first in a nationwide election in the last 114 years.
I think the expectation gap is a problem for UKIP because they are expected to run away with the Euros. If they win but only by 0.5% then that will look like failure too.
Re: Newark - could someone assist me on the Timetable? If the election is on June 6th, then that makes June 6th Day 25, and so today is Day 2 (taking into account the 2 bank holidays in May). Does this mean that someone can't count and it won't be June 6th, or can you shorten the 25 days for some reason? If the latter, which day is Day 6 (Delivery of Nominations)? Is it 4 days from now (ie Thursday of next week) or 6 days from now?
After Mrs Rochester, Labour now have as a leader, her well-meaning, schoolboy grandson. The swotty one who likes to devise cunning plans. It's superficially attractive, but I believe rent controls have been tried before and have failed. It's a pity if that's true.
But as Thomas Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
However, this is politics. Facts are not sacrosanct, and perception is all. "He's gonna keep the rents down." will beat longish explanations of the pitfalls involved. No doubt, that's why it's being proposed.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
Don't be ridiculous, SO. Let's look at the details; let's compare these proposals with the last time Labour introduced rent controls and let's see whether their current proposals will solve the problems they're intended to without the bad consequences which happened last time.
As I said yesterday Labour have identified a problem but are seeking to cure the symptoms rather than the causes of the problem.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
Correct, but that is a best-case scenario. You left out the collapse in residential property values and the consequent banking crisis. That will make ed look really competent.
That manufacturing hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008 is hardly the fault of someone who wasn't in post until 9 quarters later. How does it look compared to the day he took the job? That is surely the metric to use. That - and direction of travel.
The chart here suggests that manufacturing is pretty much at the same level now as it was when Osborne came to office. Since that time the figures show it has roughly followed a sine wave of expansion, followed by almost two years of further contraction, and more recently expansion again.
It is a lamentably poor record.
What makes it all the more ridiculous is that if you were to mark the point at which Osborne announced "the march of the makers" in his 2011 budget speech it would be almost precisely when manufacturing reached its most recent maxima and his words were then followed by nearly two years of manufacturing contraction.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
It will be interesting to see the press reaction if UKIP do not come first now.
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
I've already got my thread ready if UKIP don't win.
Success = Performance minus anticipation.
Farage and UKIP need to improve their expectations management, instead of talking about Earthquakes, he should have been pointing no party other than Lab or the Tories have finished first in a nationwide election in the last 114 years.
I think the expectation gap is a problem for UKIP because they are expected to run away with the Euros. If they win but only by 0.5% then that will look like failure too.
Too nuanced for the man on the street. If UKIP win then UKIP will have won and that will be the headline. Who came 2nd and by how much won't even make it to the footnotes.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
Why are the words "straw" and "man" coming to mind?
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
It will be interesting to see the press reaction if UKIP do not come first now.
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
I've already got my thread ready if UKIP don't win.
Success = Performance minus anticipation.
Farage and UKIP need to improve their expectations management, instead of talking about Earthquakes, he should have been pointing no party other than Lab or the Tories have finished first in a nationwide election in the last 104 years.
I hate the anticipation thing.
If you watch the 2005 election night show, everyone in the studio is saying how Labour have done rather poorly and Michael Howard quite well. With the 2010 election show, it's the other way round (with Cameron).
How could this be, when Howard was nowhere near Downing Street and Cameron was headed there? The only reason was (a) most people expected Blair to win a majority of about 90 in 2005, and (b) Cameron had a 20 point lead in an opinion poll 18 months before the 2010 election.
After Mrs Rochester, Labour now have as a leader, her well-meaning, schoolboy grandson. The swotty one who likes to devise cunning plans. It's superficially attractive, but I believe rent controls have been tried before and have failed. It's a pity if that's true.
But as Thomas Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
However, this is politics. Facts are not sacrosanct, and perception is all. "He's gonna keep the rents down." will beat longish explanations of the pitfalls involved. No doubt, that's why it's being proposed.
I think it's disreputable in the extreme to be pitching your offer at the credulousness of less sophisticated voters which is what EdM appears to be doing. They certainly seem to be ignoring reality providing a few voters honk and clap like seals anticipating a fish.
If you have a problem with high prices due to fundamentals (which is definitely the case in housing), then the right solution is to address the fundamentals. Either we need to increase the supply of housing, or reduce the demand for it by curbing immigration. However, both are politically difficult, so Miliband has just opted for something that won't actually work because at least he gets his headline.
Exactly. Miliband, yet again, has come up with a "common sense" solution to a problem. Dealing with scarcity is difficult, and costly, and takes a lot of time, so instead we get these stupid counter-productive quick-fix solutions, like capping energy prices, fixing rents, banning overseas marketing of property.
We'll soon be wishing that Brown was back in power.
Serpents will emerge from the sea. The sun will not rise. Perpetual winter will envelope the land. Maidens will be ravaged by demons. Sickness will carry off the children. All crops will fail. From the north marauders will come to pillage the towns; from the west ravens will fly to pick the bones of the dead and the dying. There will be no tomorrow. Flee now, you fools. Flee. For the merciless beast is coming. Goodness will be gone. All will be lost. Forever lost. It will be the end.
That would be quite funny, Southam, if it were not for the fact that this is not some hypothetical discussion, but a discussion about something which has already been tried in the UK, and which led to exactly what I described.
By all means ignore this point. Just don't object when I say 'I told you so' in a few years time.
Richard, if you have read my posts on this you'll see that I fully agree the plans are deeply flawed. However, they are not a return to the old rent controls. They are also plans elucidated in opposition that are bound to be significantly changed before they ever become law. But I do enjoy your forecasts of cataclysm.
For me, the most significant thing is that, once again, Ed has identified an area that the government has largely ignored but which resonates. It will now come up with its own proposals, which may well be better. And that is a good thing. But Ed has set the agenda, again. Politically that works for him.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
It will be interesting to see the press reaction if UKIP do not come first now.
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
I've already got my thread ready if UKIP don't win.
Success = Performance minus anticipation.
Farage and UKIP need to improve their expectations management, instead of talking about Earthquakes, he should have been pointing no party other than Lab or the Tories have finished first in a nationwide election in the last 114 years.
I think the expectation gap is a problem for UKIP because they are expected to run away with the Euros. If they win but only by 0.5% then that will look like failure too.
Too nuanced for the man on the street. If UKIP win then UKIP will have won and that will be the headline. Who came 2nd and by how much won't even make it to the footnotes.
If UKIP come a close 2nd the man in the street will think of it as success, if he even notices.
Most people probably don't even know the Euro Elections are about to take place.
Rent control is a tricky one. Is this really what Labour is proposing? I genuinely do not know. As I understand it - and I could be wrong - what they are looking to restrict is the ability to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant. That is not the same as telling the landlord what he can charge in the first place. If I am right, perhaps a fairer way of putting it would be rental rate rise control.
If that's what he's proposing then it's just going to mean everyone sits tight, dependent on their existing landlord, because if they ever moved they'd suddenly have to pay the market rate. The landlords will know this and be able to treat them like shit. Also, it will completely put landlords off maintaining their flats to a decent standard, because the rental return won't be worth the cost. It's absurd. If you have a problem with high prices due to fundamentals (which is definitely the case in housing), then the right solution is to address the fundamentals. Either we need to increase the supply of housing, or reduce the demand for it by curbing immigration. However, both are politically difficult, so Miliband has just opted for something that won't actually work because at least he gets his headline.
The bothersome proposal, IMO, is to give tenants the right to remain n occupation for 29 months over and above the contractual term. If one is looking for an Assured Tenancy, then that is available currently, but only as part of the process of negotiation between landlord and tenant.
Assured Shorthold Tenancies work very well for many landlords and tenants. Landlords know that they can get their property back without difficulty. Students and people moving round the country to take up a new job aren't locked into long leases which aren't in their interests.
I've been both a tenant and a landlord, and it's really not clear to me what is wrong with the current system that needs fixing in this way. I don't think that in general, many people aim to rent for years on end from private landlords.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
I was browsing the twitter feed of one of the Survation bods the other day (before the recent UKIP++ polls) and he was saying that despite all the polls showing Labour likely-winners of the EU Parliament elections, none of the pollsters believed it; they felt it was an error in their methodology somewhere.
I think UKIP will win the Euros for the following reasons
1) Higher/Differential turnout among Kippers which pollsters are trying to capture with their certainty to vote adjustments
2) Most European election polls are usually preceded by Westminster VI questions so that on some unconscious level has a way of influencing the Euros VI responses. If you look at yesterday's Euro polls they didn't have Westminster VI questions, and guess what, they had huge UKIP leads.
UKIP lead by 4 in certain to vote
You are more experienced at reading polling data than me, I am relative novice. So can you help please?
On page five of the data, there is a heading Politcal Party Identification
UKIP aren't listed, and others is weighted from 133 to 44.
Why is that and what affect does it have?
Why don't the totals come to 5331?
I think YouGov have made a booboo.
The Euros poll was conducted at the same time as the Mon, Tues and Wed YouGov polls, and they've accidentally copied the same one as Wednesday's Westminster VI poll weightings instead of aggregating their polls from Mon to Wed.
If you have a problem with high prices due to fundamentals (which is definitely the case in housing), then the right solution is to address the fundamentals. Either we need to increase the supply of housing, or reduce the demand for it by curbing immigration. However, both are politically difficult, so Miliband has just opted for something that won't actually work because at least he gets his headline.
Exactly. Miliband, yet again, has come up with a "common sense" solution to a problem. Dealing with scarcity is difficult, and costly, and takes a lot of time, so instead we get these stupid counter-productive quick-fix solutions, like capping energy prices, fixing rents, banning overseas marketing of property.
We'll soon be wishing that Brown was back in power.
Brown's moral compass was his Church of Scotland father, EdM's is his Marxist father. Give me Brown any day of the week.
Rent control is a tricky one. Is this really what Labour is proposing? I genuinely do not know. As I understand it - and I could be wrong - what they are looking to restrict is the ability to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant. That is not the same as telling the landlord what he can charge in the first place. If I am right, perhaps a fairer way of putting it would be rental rate rise control.
If that's what he's proposing then it's just going to mean everyone sits tight, dependent on their existing landlord, because if they ever moved they'd suddenly have to pay the market rate. The landlords will know this and be able to treat them like shit. Also, it will completely put landlords off maintaining their flats to a decent standard, because the rental return won't be worth the cost. It's absurd. If you have a problem with high prices due to fundamentals (which is definitely the case in housing), then the right solution is to address the fundamentals. Either we need to increase the supply of housing, or reduce the demand for it by curbing immigration. However, both are politically difficult, so Miliband has just opted for something that won't actually work because at least he gets his headline.
They are promising to build 200,000 new houses a year as well, I believe. But, I agree, there are serious flaws in the plans which demonstrate the current Labour leadership's lack of familiarity with market economics. However, it's good to get a debate going on this as it is a serious problem for a lot of people. Perhaps better solutions will emerge.
I agree it's a debate that needs to be had, but a party leader can start a debate without starting off from populist, economically foolish policies that will be difficult to back away from. Miliband is clearly just a charlatan that cares more about getting elected than governing well once in office.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
That's scare-mongering. Other European countries have more regulated rental markets than in the UK and I don't see any evidence of what you suggest in a country like Germany.
When people have a legitimate grievance with the status quo, and when they can see alternatives in other countries that are better than that status quo, you cannot simply deride any suggestions for reform as likely to make things worse. People won't accept the status quo on the private rental market indefinitely.
If you don't make your own reforms someone else will do so.
And I don't trust Miliband's mob to do it properly either, but if no-one provides a better alternative I can be pretty sure what people will vote for.
@Southam - You are misjudging Ed. He has been consistent - do you remember that 'Producers vs Predators' garbage? He has repeated the same theme in speech after speech, but generally in such wonkish, abstract terms that people just scratched their heads and ignored it. That was a mistake - he's now applying the abstractions to the real world, and, to give him his due, doing what logically follows from the vacuous platitudes that were in his early speeches.
In other words, he really does believe in the state poking around to wreck markets: each one of his barmy policy proposals has been along the same lines. It's an absolutely consistent pattern, and I think he really does mean it. That is the danger.
Manufacturing PMI of 57.3 against expectations of 55.4, nice outperformance and a sign that the economy is still growing at a pretty high rate. GBP passes the 1.69 barrier. Though the PMIs have tended to overstate growth compared to the ONS, taking this reading forward would see manufacturing growth rise from 1.3% last quarter to around 1.6-1.9% next quarter, if the PMI were to fall to down to 55-56 then 1.5% growth would be achievable.
That's a bit like saying Man U have been doing really well since Giggs took over. Manufacturing still hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008.
George Osborne even crapper than Brown and Darling who'd have thunk it ?
Well it's been four quarters of solid growth, and it's accelerating. I don't know what else could be done. The fact is that between 2010-2012 our largest trading partner and buyer of our finished goods decided that it would be best if they imploded their economy. Without anyone to buy our goods they were not made. In that time the government moved to expand relationships with the RoW, now that strategy has begun to bear fruit, exports to China are up, exports to India are up, exports to Latin America are up (despite idiots in Argentina swearing to seek vengeance on anyone who buys British goods). It's nice to think this could all happen overnight, and I wish the pace of expansion was faster than it is, but that's not the way it works in the real world. The share of exports to RoW vs EU has changed quite dramatically over the last three years, but total good exported has remained the same.
To say that the current lot are worse than the last who neglected our trading partnerships with the world outside Europe is simply false. The reason there was so much weakness is that the Labour management team decided that it would be cheaper to replace our premier division defenders with league two defenders because no one would ever attack. When it did inevitably come, we were left defenceless and the new team had to invest money to change the whole defensive line up. That doesn't happen overnight.
Generation Landlord.Tories March To Defend High Rents. "But even if we assume, that millions of British people are aware of the intricacies of Venezuelan housing policy, are we really meant to believe they will balk at the idea of living in a country where rents don't go up quite as much?"
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
I was browsing the twitter feed of one of the Survation bods the other day (before the recent UKIP++ polls) and he was saying that despite all the polls showing Labour likely-winners of the EU Parliament elections, none of the pollsters believed it; they felt it was an error in their methodology somewhere.
I think UKIP will win the Euros for the following reasons
1) Higher/Differential turnout among Kippers which pollsters are trying to capture with their certainty to vote adjustments
2) Most European election polls are usually preceded by Westminster VI questions so that on some unconscious level has a way of influencing the Euros VI responses. If you look at yesterday's Euro polls they didn't have Westminster VI questions, and guess what, they had huge UKIP leads.
UKIP lead by 4 in certain to vote
You are more experienced at reading polling data than me, I am relative novice. So can you help please?
On page five of the data, there is a heading Politcal Party Identification
UKIP aren't listed, and others is weighted from 133 to 44.
Why is that and what affect does it have?
Why don't the totals come to 5331?
As for why they do it.
All pollsters want a balanced sample, based on 2010 vote and demographics.
However, every poll will have some groups over-represented and some under-represented, so they have to down weight some and upweight some to make it representative.
Another aspect to this whole setting of policy on the hoof is that this is a direct effect of Ed Miliband having never worked in the private sector. Anyone that has worked for a business in a serious capacity has a pretty good sense of how business decisions are made in response to new regulation, and that they're not necessarily what the regulation intends. As with the energy cap madness, Miliband has once again come up with a bright idea that sounds good to the layman, apparently not pausing for a minute to think of the obviously negative effects that would emerge.
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
I was browsing the twitter feed of one of the Survation bods the other day (before the recent UKIP++ polls) and he was saying that despite all the polls showing Labour likely-winners of the EU Parliament elections, none of the pollsters believed it; they felt it was an error in their methodology somewhere.
I think UKIP will win the Euros for the following reasons
1) Higher/Differential turnout among Kippers which pollsters are trying to capture with their certainty to vote adjustments
2) Most European election polls are usually preceded by Westminster VI questions so that on some unconscious level has a way of influencing the Euros VI responses. If you look at yesterday's Euro polls they didn't have Westminster VI questions, and guess what, they had huge UKIP leads.
UKIP lead by 4 in certain to vote
You are more experienced at reading polling data than me, I am relative novice. So can you help please?
On page five of the data, there is a heading Politcal Party Identification
UKIP aren't listed, and others is weighted from 133 to 44.
Why is that and what affect does it have?
Why don't the totals come to 5331?
As for why they do it.
All pollsters want a balanced sample, based on 2010 vote and demographics.
However, every poll will have some groups over-represented and some under-represented, so they have to down weight some and upweight some to make it representative.
That's scare-mongering. Other European countries have more regulated rental markets than in the UK and I don't see any evidence of what you suggest in a country like Germany.
Germany doesn't have a rapidly rising population, causing the demand for housing to outstrip supply.
CERTAIN to vote 10/10 is at 52.7% of the sample according to my maths.
Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate - 2009.
I'm not sure I'd say I was 10/10 to vote to a pollster, 9/10 maybe - always a chance something very important may pop up on polling day.
Do people lie about how likely they are to vote ?
No, I think it was Nick Sparrow, who came up with spiral of silence adjustment for ICM said people's intention to vote is accurate at the time of the poll, but when polling day comes, events and reality take over.
For example it we had a lot of rain, would people really trudge out for the Euros, bar the most ardent Pro-Europeans and Anti-EUers.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer, as I always do, good government. If the public are taken in by Ed Miliband to the extent that he becomes PM, and if (as I fear) he actually does mean what he says, incredible though this may seem, we will see the end of good government. In particular we will see the collapse of the private rented market, many more empty properties, a reduction in standards (why invest in your property if you can't get a return on the investment?), and the rise of rogue landlords as the decent ones exit the market.
Is that what you prefer?
That's scare-mongering. Other European countries have more regulated rental markets than in the UK and I don't see any evidence of what you suggest in a country like Germany.
When people have a legitimate grievance with the status quo, and when they can see alternatives in other countries that are better than that status quo, you cannot simply deride any suggestions for reform as likely to make things worse. People won't accept the status quo on the private rental market indefinitely.
If you don't make your own reforms someone else will do so.
And I don't trust Miliband's mob to do it properly either, but if no-one provides a better alternative I can be pretty sure what people will vote for.
Precisely. Rather than carp, find an alternative to what is a serious issue for many people. And, as you say, rental markets work pretty well in other countries where there is some degree of control. It does not have to be all or nothing.
@Southam - You are misjudging Ed. He has been consistent - do you remember that 'Producers vs Predators' garbage? He has repeated the same theme in speech after speech, but generally in such wonkish, abstract terms that people just scratched their heads and ignored it. That was a mistake - he's now applying the abstractions to the real world, and, to give him his due, doing what logically follows from the vacuous platitudes that were in his early speeches.
In other words, he really does believe in the state poking around to wreck markets: each one of his barmy policy proposals has been along the same lines. It's an absolutely consistent pattern, and I think he really does mean it. That is the danger.
EdM thinks that the markets are already broken, so intervening may rebalance them. And in fairness, I think of lot of people using the energy and rental markets would agree they are broken.
Generation Landlord.Tories March To Defend High Rents. "But even if we assume, that millions of British people are aware of the intricacies of Venezuelan housing policy, are we really meant to believe they will balk at the idea of living in a country where rents don't go up quite as much?"
What a terrible article. It's the whole Politico-style of reporting, that only thinks of politics as a "who's up, who's down" game that should be reported in a similar fashion to reality TV. This is how far too many politicians think - as made clear by Ed Miliband this morning - but what's sad is that increasing numbers of journalists now think the same way. The author of that column didn't mention once the pros and cons of the actual policy itself, and it's likely effect on this country. No wonder we are so badly governed. Idiots like Adam Bienkov just add to the bad system. What ever happened to holding politicians' ideas to actual scrutiny on their merits?
@Southam - You are misjudging Ed. He has been consistent - do you remember that 'Producers vs Predators' garbage?
Ah yes the "good business and bad business" nonsense. Which seemed to mainly involve Ed noting that banks going bust was bad, but came with no explanation as to how he could sort the good from the bad in advance of them getting into difficulties. I think I recall that when pressed to name some bad businesses — which is surely something you ought to be able to do if it possible to sort them — he declined to name any.
@Southam - You are misjudging Ed. He has been consistent - do you remember that 'Producers vs Predators' garbage? He has repeated the same theme in speech after speech, but generally in such wonkish, abstract terms that people just scratched their heads and ignored it. That was a mistake - he's now applying the abstractions to the real world, and, to give him his due, doing what logically follows from the vacuous platitudes that were in his early speeches.
In other words, he really does believe in the state poking around to wreck markets: each one of his barmy policy proposals has been along the same lines. It's an absolutely consistent pattern, and I think he really does mean it. That is the danger.
EdM thinks that the markets are already broken, so intervening may rebalance them. And in fairness, I think of lot of people using the energy and rental markets would agree they are broken.
Ah the old "something must be done... this is something... therefore it must be done" logic.
CERTAIN to vote 10/10 is at 52.7% of the sample according to my maths.
Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate - 2009.
I'm not sure I'd say I was 10/10 to vote to a pollster, 9/10 maybe - always a chance something very important may pop up on polling day.
Do people lie about how likely they are to vote ?
No, I think it was Nick Sparrow, who came up with spiral of silence adjustment for ICM said people's intention to vote is accurate at the time of the poll, but when polling day comes, events and reality take over.
For example it we had a lot of rain, would people really trudge out for the Euros, bar the most ardent Pro-Europeans and Anti-EUers.
I always get the impression that alot of Labour voters only bother to turn out for General elections on a sunny day.
That's scare-mongering. Other European countries have more regulated rental markets than in the UK and I don't see any evidence of what you suggest in a country like Germany.
Germany doesn't have a rapidly rising population, causing the demand for housing to outstrip supply.
I would have thought that was fairly obvious.
Had a look at the German/UK population graphs - astonishing stuff. Germany is a developed economic powerhouse, and I thought they had alot of Turkish migration. So why is our population chart trying to shoot off the scale whereas theres is levelish ?
That's scare-mongering. Other European countries have more regulated rental markets than in the UK and I don't see any evidence of what you suggest in a country like Germany.
Germany doesn't have a rapidly rising population, causing the demand for housing to outstrip supply.
I would have thought that was fairly obvious.
That's a fair point. It's a lot better than the rubbish Tory line of likening Miliband's proposals to Venezuelan rent controls.
EdM thinks that the markets are already broken, so intervening may rebalance them. And in fairness, I think of lot of people using the energy and rental markets would agree they are broken.
Sure, people moan about their gas bills - despite these being amongst the lowest in Europe, and influenced above all by European market prices and by government levies - and tenants moan about landlords. Even more, landlords moan about tenants, and often with good reason.
In fact in both cases the markets are working pretty well, and, in the case of the private rented sector, very well indeed, in comparison to the nightmare we had when Ed-style policies were in operation.
The irony is that we have finally, after years of reform, got a good private rented sector; there is only one thing more which is needed, which is to encourage big pension funds and other large-scale investors to enter the market and increase supply. That was looking as though it might be beginning to happen:
Generation Landlord.Tories March To Defend High Rents. "But even if we assume, that millions of British people are aware of the intricacies of Venezuelan housing policy, are we really meant to believe they will balk at the idea of living in a country where rents don't go up quite as much?"
What a terrible article. It's the whole Politico-style of reporting, that only thinks of politics as a "who's up, who's down" game that should be reported in a similar fashion to reality TV. This is how far too many politicians think - as made clear by Ed Miliband this morning - but what's sad is that increasing numbers of journalists now think the same way. The author of that column didn't mention once the pros and cons of the actual policy itself, and it's likely effect on this country. No wonder we are so badly governed. Idiots like Adam Bienkov just add to the bad system. What ever happened to holding politicians' ideas to actual scrutiny on their merits?
That really is nonsense Socrates. Politico is a site about politics, not policy or economics. And Bienkov makes a very good point. The Tories citing Venezuela and Marxism in response to EdM initiatives really does not cut the mustard; it's much better to concede he has identified a problem, but his solution is all wrong.
We have a huge problem with the housing market in this country. For those like Sean Fear who think there is no problem in the rental market, you have to ask why is it that people are so desperate to buy even when that means taking on massive debts. Renting needs to be more attractive. I do believe our tenancy rights are pretty weak by international comparison. Whether EdM has got it right I don't know. But the hysterical 'Venezuela' reaction from Grant Shapps shows just where the Tories now are and will only further motivate those who want them out of power next year however possible.
The Tories should realise their tea party and media supporting brothers in the USA went apocalyptic on Obama in 2012 and it didn't do them any good.
Based on that yougov poll, it looks like the LDs would beat the Greens to a seat in London. Although we haven't got it broken down by Euro constituencies, I'd guess they would get another seat in the South East region, based on them getting 10% across the whole of Southern England exc London. That might be it though.
That's scare-mongering. Other European countries have more regulated rental markets than in the UK and I don't see any evidence of what you suggest in a country like Germany.
Germany doesn't have a rapidly rising population, causing the demand for housing to outstrip supply.
I would have thought that was fairly obvious.
Had a look at the German/UK population graphs - astonishing stuff. Germany is a developed economic powerhouse, and I thought they had alot of Turkish migration. So why is our population chart trying to shoot off the scale whereas theres is levelish ?
I would guess that the English language has a lot to do with this. Arguably also the general standard of education.
@Southam - You are misjudging Ed. He has been consistent - do you remember that 'Producers vs Predators' garbage? He has repeated the same theme in speech after speech, but generally in such wonkish, abstract terms that people just scratched their heads and ignored it. That was a mistake - he's now applying the abstractions to the real world, and, to give him his due, doing what logically follows from the vacuous platitudes that were in his early speeches.
In other words, he really does believe in the state poking around to wreck markets: each one of his barmy policy proposals has been along the same lines. It's an absolutely consistent pattern, and I think he really does mean it. That is the danger.
EdM thinks that the markets are already broken, so intervening may rebalance them. And in fairness, I think of lot of people using the energy and rental markets would agree they are broken.
Ah the old "something must be done... this is something... therefore it must be done" logic.
Indeed. But I suspect voters will be more favourable to the guy who wants to do something than the one who says nothing needs to be done. I don't know if EdM's solution will work, but at least he recognises there is a problem. And I strongly suspect that's how it will play to a lot of voters. It's similar to UKIP's attraction. People may not know about or support all of their solutions, but UKIP see a problem that voters see and LibLabCon don't. Now whether that's because the political mainstream is blind or UKIP are obsessing on a problem that isn't really there is definitely up for debate, but in electoral terms we see the result playing out in the EP polls.
Could someone let me know when the Populus aggregate monthly poll is likely to come out?
I'm hopeful tomorrow, but I think it maybe after the bank holiday.
Most helpful - thanks.
Tomorrow would be much better for me because I want it for my next series of posts, and I intend using the bank holiday weekend for knuckling down to work on those.
@Southam - You are misjudging Ed. He has been consistent - do you remember that 'Producers vs Predators' garbage? He has repeated the same theme in speech after speech, but generally in such wonkish, abstract terms that people just scratched their heads and ignored it. That was a mistake - he's now applying the abstractions to the real world, and, to give him his due, doing what logically follows from the vacuous platitudes that were in his early speeches.
In other words, he really does believe in the state poking around to wreck markets: each one of his barmy policy proposals has been along the same lines. It's an absolutely consistent pattern, and I think he really does mean it. That is the danger.
What Labour is suggesting will to many people renting seem like a good idea. Anyone who has had to unwillingly move house due to increases in rent will like Labour plans regardless of the unthought through consequences.
Could someone let me know when the Populus aggregate monthly poll is likely to come out?
I'm hopeful tomorrow, but I think it maybe after the bank holiday.
Most helpful - thanks.
Tomorrow would be much better for me because I want it for my next series of posts, and I intend using the bank holiday weekend for knuckling down to work on those.
The populus aggregate is becoming one of the most important polling events of the month, after ICM and Ipsos-Mori.
Daniel Knowles has written in the Economist that these rent controls aren't going to mean much.
The inevitable Tory reaction will no doubt be a nice political hit for Miliband. He's hitting a raw nerve I imagine. The central Tory maxim of not attaching any serious responsibility to ownership is being challenged. It's about time.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
I agree with that divvie we need a bit of grit to keep the indy action rolling.
Daniel Knowles has written in the Economist that these rent controls aren't going to mean much.
The inevitable Tory reaction will no doubt be a nice political hit for Miliband. He's hitting a raw nerve I imagine. The central Tory maxim of not attaching any serious responsibility to ownership is being challenged. It's about time.
If a future Labour government wants to control the price of everything they will find out that they end up shouldering more responsibility, not the "owners". Be careful what you wish for.
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
Salmond does appear to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to homophobes, doesn't he?
Once again more lies
I could swear he was saying nice things about that well known gay-rights champion, Vladimir Putin the other day......
He said far more bad things than good. Saying the guy is a good politician is hardly admiration. Usual Tory smears, just because Putin said eth UK was a busted flush and had no importanc ein the world, a la Chinese opinion.
That really is nonsense Socrates. Politico is a site about politics, not policy or economics. And Bienkov makes a very good point. The Tories citing Venezuela and Marxism in response to EdM initiatives really does not cut the mustard; it's much better to concede he has identified a problem, but his solution is all wrong.
Having ploughed through the various media reports that I've been able to locate, I have to say that I agree with Socrates that it's a terrible article simply because it misrepresents how the Conservative attack is being portrayed in the press. I've already cited the BBC online report, which doesn't even mention the word "Venezuelan". Of the reports I've seen, only the Guardian's can so far be described as positive in tone for Labour.
The Mail's report doesn't mention the Conservative attack at all:
"Labour was accused on Wednesday night of attempting to introduce rent controls like those blamed for damaging the property sector during the 1960s and 1970s.
The Conservatives said the policy had been tried unsuccessfully by Socialist governments in Venezuela and Vietnam, and would result in low quality accommodation and fewer homes being rented out."
The Independent takes a surprisingly cautious tone:
This is how they report the Conservative response:
"Labour officials insist that similar caps on rents have worked in Ireland without ruining the private rented sector. But the Tories accused Labour of proposing “Venezuelan-style rent controls”. Grant Shapps, the Tory chairman, said: “This is another short-term gimmick – political tampering from Ed Miliband. Evidence from Britain and around the world conclusively demonstrates that rent controls lead to poorer quality accommodation, fewer homes being rented and ultimately higher rents – hurting those most in need.” "
And for completeness, the Guardian, which goes much more on the Venezuelan angle:
It appears that Mr Bienkov has read only the Guardian before putting his piece together. In all other media outlets I've seen, the Conservative argument is fully articulated for the reader.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
I agree with that divvie we need a bit of grit to keep the indy action rolling.
Comments
A spring surge in April pushed house prices up 11pc in a year, the first double-digit measure since 2010"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/10800382/Annual-house-price-growth-reaches-double-digits.html
If this happens to anyone, send a message to PBModerator via the vanilla messaging system and we will rectify it.
It can take anywhere from 5 mins to a few hours for vanilla to update itself once we've rectified it.
I've no idea whether Ed Miliband's proposals are any good or not, but I do know that there is a head of steam building behind this, particularly as the proportion of people who rely on the private rental market increases. This effectively leaves Tories with a choice. Either they can introduce their own reforms to the rental market or they can watch impotently from the sidelines as a Labour government does so.
Which would you prefer?
The Tories on here have never welcomed a Labour policy with open arms, at least to my memory. They just wait until the government copies the policy, then change their view.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26752940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_1999_(United_Kingdom)
Is that what you prefer?
There would be a provision that allowed landlords to enter into shorter contracts where they are contractually obliged to do so as part of a buy to let mortgage entered into before the start of this new legislation.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/84352297129/ed-miliband-launches-election-campaign-with-rents
Fieldwork was 27th of April and the 30th of April
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/v1aduveoca/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-300414-EU-Why-Vote-UKIP.pdf
UKIP are still 4 points clear in the 10/10 to vote yougov
1) Higher/Differential turnout among Kippers which pollsters are trying to capture with their certainty to vote adjustments
2) Most European election polls are usually preceded by Westminster VI questions so that on some unconscious level has a way of influencing the Euros VI responses. If you look at yesterday's Euro polls they didn't have Westminster VI questions, and guess what, they had huge UKIP leads.
Success = Performance minus anticipation.
Farage and UKIP need to improve their expectations management, instead of talking about Earthquakes, he should have been pointing no party other than Lab or the Tories have finished first in a nationwide election in the last 104 years.
By all means ignore this point. Just don't object when I say 'I told you so' in a few years time.
"For the record I am disgusted by the actions of Vladimir Putin. He manipulated the constitution to keep himself in power, he implicitly endorses the killing of journalists, he supresses gays and is both flouting international law and threatening a European war over Ukraine. If I were asked today for my view, that is what I would say with the caveat that his style of leadership plays to an instinct in the Russian psyche that warms to ‘strong’ leadership and feels more confident with him in the Kremlin.
Salmond may have slipped when he tried for balance in his reported remarks to GQ but does anyone think Salmond is anti-gay – having just brought in gay marriage – that he supresses opposition, silences journalists or threatens war? This retrospective tirade sounds like the last one…what was it?…his hotel expenses. I suspect that people who haven’t even read what he said are baying for blood because ‘he’s siding with Putin’.
I am I suppose being an apologist for him since, on reading his remarks, it is clear to me what he was trying to impart but you have to try to find the real meaning first. And the truth as we know is that across our media there is virtually no one prepared to do that. However, when that bias extends to ignoring George Roberton’s call for Putin and Russia to be included in NATO in order to treat them as a friendly nation in a formal defence alliance, you have wonder why not. Robertson is going much further than Salmond’s off-the-cuff remarks and proposing sharing our national defence so much do we trust Putin.
Why is there no mention of the British approach to Putin to back their fight against Scottish independence? That too goes much further than Salmond by proposing a political alliance with Putin. Are neither of these points relevant?And in case you’ve forgotten, other leaders have been happy to endorse Vladimir more heartily than Salmond.
Tony Blair said he was ‘open and forward looking and a moderniser’. Obama says he did ‘extraordinary work’ for the Russian people. Sarkozy said he was a ‘courageous, determined man capable of accepting and understanding.’
And, sorry Vladimir, but here’s George Bush: ‘I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country…I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.’"
http://tinyurl.com/q5lra9x
You are more experienced at reading polling data than me, I am relative novice. So can you help please?
On page five of the data, there is a heading Politcal Party Identification
UKIP aren't listed, and others is weighted from 133 to 44.
Why is that and what affect does it have?
Why don't the totals come to 5331?
But as Thomas Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
However, this is politics. Facts are not sacrosanct, and perception is all. "He's gonna keep the rents down." will beat longish explanations of the pitfalls involved. No doubt, that's why it's being proposed.
As I said yesterday Labour have identified a problem but are seeking to cure the symptoms rather than the causes of the problem.
It is a lamentably poor record.
What makes it all the more ridiculous is that if you were to mark the point at which Osborne announced "the march of the makers" in his 2011 budget speech it would be almost precisely when manufacturing reached its most recent maxima and his words were then followed by nearly two years of manufacturing contraction.
If you watch the 2005 election night show, everyone in the studio is saying how Labour have done rather poorly and Michael Howard quite well. With the 2010 election show, it's the other way round (with Cameron).
How could this be, when Howard was nowhere near Downing Street and Cameron was headed there? The only reason was (a) most people expected Blair to win a majority of about 90 in 2005, and (b) Cameron had a 20 point lead in an opinion poll 18 months before the 2010 election.
We'll soon be wishing that Brown was back in power.
http://order-order.com/2014/05/01/rics-deny-labour-claim-they-are-helping-with-rent-caps-policy-rent-caps-were-not-part-of-our-recommendations/
Pretty shi**y behaviour by Labour, if it's true.
For me, the most significant thing is that, once again, Ed has identified an area that the government has largely ignored but which resonates. It will now come up with its own proposals, which may well be better. And that is a good thing. But Ed has set the agenda, again. Politically that works for him.
Most people probably don't even know the Euro Elections are about to take place.
http://order-order.com/2014/05/01/rics-deny-labour-claim-they-are-helping-with-rent-caps-policy-rent-caps-were-not-part-of-our-recommendations/
Assured Shorthold Tenancies work very well for many landlords and tenants. Landlords know that they can get their property back without difficulty. Students and people moving round the country to take up a new job aren't locked into long leases which aren't in their interests.
I've been both a tenant and a landlord, and it's really not clear to me what is wrong with the current system that needs fixing in this way. I don't think that in general, many people aim to rent for years on end from private landlords.
The Euros poll was conducted at the same time as the Mon, Tues and Wed YouGov polls, and they've accidentally copied the same one as Wednesday's Westminster VI poll weightings instead of aggregating their polls from Mon to Wed.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5gjrknv8i5/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-300414.pdf
When people have a legitimate grievance with the status quo, and when they can see alternatives in other countries that are better than that status quo, you cannot simply deride any suggestions for reform as likely to make things worse. People won't accept the status quo on the private rental market indefinitely.
If you don't make your own reforms someone else will do so.
And I don't trust Miliband's mob to do it properly either, but if no-one provides a better alternative I can be pretty sure what people will vote for.
Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate - 2009.
I'm not sure I'd say I was 10/10 to vote to a pollster, 9/10 maybe - always a chance something very important may pop up on polling day.
Do people lie about how likely they are to vote ?
In other words, he really does believe in the state poking around to wreck markets: each one of his barmy policy proposals has been along the same lines. It's an absolutely consistent pattern, and I think he really does mean it. That is the danger.
To say that the current lot are worse than the last who neglected our trading partnerships with the world outside Europe is simply false. The reason there was so much weakness is that the Labour management team decided that it would be cheaper to replace our premier division defenders with league two defenders because no one would ever attack. When it did inevitably come, we were left defenceless and the new team had to invest money to change the whole defensive line up. That doesn't happen overnight.
"But even if we assume, that millions of British people are aware of the intricacies of Venezuelan housing policy, are we really meant to believe they will balk at the idea of living in a country where rents don't go up quite as much?"
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/05/01/generation-landlord-tories-march-to-defend-high-rents
All pollsters want a balanced sample, based on 2010 vote and demographics.
However, every poll will have some groups over-represented and some under-represented, so they have to down weight some and upweight some to make it representative.
I would have thought that was fairly obvious.
For example it we had a lot of rain, would people really trudge out for the Euros, bar the most ardent Pro-Europeans and Anti-EUers.
Turns out it was nonsense: the sub-samples were far too small to be reliable.
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Populus-Mobile-Payments-Survey.pdf
But I might be in the minority on this. Dunno.
In fact in both cases the markets are working pretty well, and, in the case of the private rented sector, very well indeed, in comparison to the nightmare we had when Ed-style policies were in operation.
The irony is that we have finally, after years of reform, got a good private rented sector; there is only one thing more which is needed, which is to encourage big pension funds and other large-scale investors to enter the market and increase supply. That was looking as though it might be beginning to happen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23696313
I'd hazard a guess that Ed has kiboshed progress on that just as he has kiboshed the investment plans of the energy sector.
The Tories should realise their tea party and media supporting brothers in the USA went apocalyptic on Obama in 2012 and it didn't do them any good.
Although we haven't got it broken down by Euro constituencies, I'd guess they would get another seat in the South East region, based on them getting 10% across the whole of Southern England exc London. That might be it though.
Latest Ladbrokes odds
Lib Dem Seats
0 7/2
1 7/2
2 7/2
3+ 11/8
Workhouses, it is the only way.
Tomorrow would be much better for me because I want it for my next series of posts, and I intend using the bank holiday weekend for knuckling down to work on those.
What Labour is suggesting will to many people renting seem like a good idea. Anyone who has had to unwillingly move house due to increases in rent will like Labour plans regardless of the unthought through consequences.
Is that still Labour policy?
twitter.com/neiledwardlovat/status/461810403593695232/photo/1
Must be one of those rare occasions that PB Tories weren't wrong ...
The inevitable Tory reaction will no doubt be a nice political hit for Miliband. He's hitting a raw nerve I imagine. The central Tory maxim of not attaching any serious responsibility to ownership is being challenged. It's about time.
In fact, both the CPI data and the ONS data suggest that rental increases are running at below inflation levels, roughly 1 per cent a year.
http://hopisen.com/2014/second-generation-rent-controls-solving-a-problem-that-doesnt-exist/
And the consequences will be:
The real-world effects of this are likely to be that expected rent increases over the three-year lease will be priced in to the starting rent
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning-transport/why-labours-rent-controls-will-do-more-harm-than-good
The Mail's report doesn't mention the Conservative attack at all:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2617398/Ed-threatens-bring-rent-controls-Labour-leader-vows-cap-rises-force-landlords-offer-long-term-tenancies-despite-fears-worsen-housing-crisis.html
But since it lays into the proposal itself, I guess that would have been redundant.
The Telegraph does, in the following terms:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/10799998/Labour-to-cap-landlords-rent-on-buy-to-let-homes.html
"Labour was accused on Wednesday night of attempting to introduce rent controls like those blamed for damaging the property sector during the 1960s and 1970s.
The Conservatives said the policy had been tried unsuccessfully by Socialist governments in Venezuela and Vietnam, and would result in low quality accommodation and fewer homes being rented out."
The Independent takes a surprisingly cautious tone:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-to-pledge-rent-limits-for-private-tenants-if-elected-9308004.html
This is how they report the Conservative response:
"Labour officials insist that similar caps on rents have worked in Ireland without ruining the private rented sector. But the Tories accused Labour of proposing “Venezuelan-style rent controls”. Grant Shapps, the Tory chairman, said: “This is another short-term gimmick – political tampering from Ed Miliband. Evidence from Britain and around the world conclusively demonstrates that rent controls lead to poorer quality accommodation, fewer homes being rented and ultimately higher rents – hurting those most in need.” "
And for completeness, the Guardian, which goes much more on the Venezuelan angle:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/30/ed-miliband-labour-rental-market-reforms-property
It appears that Mr Bienkov has read only the Guardian before putting his piece together. In all other media outlets I've seen, the Conservative argument is fully articulated for the reader.
The blokes a genius.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/30/john-denham-labour-party-south-england_n_5242163.html?1398932571&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics