The Economist Blog is not the Law of the Medes and Persians
I prefer it as source of analysis to the PB Tories.
For my sins.
Then you need to be very careful. I used to subscribe to the Economist and then one week it did an article on a subject in which I was extremely knowledgeable. The content of that article was so inaccurate as to be laughable. Furthermore, if its author had just made some small enquiries (read a couple of papers or made a couple of phone calls, maybe, just really basic research) they would have found out very quickly how wrong they were. I cancelled my subscription that same day because if they were that wrong about one thing how could I trust them on things I knew little about.
This site has more subject experts (e.g. Neil on Pensions, Charles on the City and Mr. Jessop on software engineering) and more aggregated knowledge than the economist could ever dream of. You'll need to forget your tribalism to benefit though.
It is sheer tribalism that prevents any PB Tory from ever giving any Labour idea time of day...
It is sheer tribalism that prevents any PB Tory from ever giving any Labour idea time of day...
Well, that is total nonsense. Admittedly there have been very few half-way decent Labour ideas in the last few years, but on the rare occasions when one does pop up, I for one will always say so.
The Economist Blog is not the Law of the Medes and Persians
I prefer it as source of analysis to the PB Tories.
For my sins.
Then you need to be very careful. I used to subscribe to the Economist and then one week it did an article on a subject in which I was extremely knowledgeable. The content of that article was so inaccurate as to be laughable. Furthermore, if its author had just made some small enquiries (read a couple of papers or made a couple of phone calls, maybe, just really basic research) they would have found out very quickly how wrong they were. I cancelled my subscription that same day because if they were that wrong about one thing how could I trust them on things I knew little about.
This site has more subject experts (e.g. Neil on Pensions, Charles on the City and Mr. Jessop on software engineering) and more aggregated knowledge than the economist could ever dream of. You'll need to forget your tribalism to benefit though.
It is sheer tribalism that prevents any PB Tory from ever giving any Labour idea time of day...
The fact that you actually use a group term that applies to posters of a wide variety of political views and support for parties, in order to dismiss criticism without engaging in the content, suggests it is you that is being tribal.
All the "PB Tories" disagreeing with you today have done so on the actual content of the policy debate. You have not.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 24m Anti-UKIP elexn slogan in @TheSunNewspaper a bit catchier than CCHQ's:"If you vote silly, you get Mili" pic.twitter.com/UWGkh6riGi
The Economist Blog is not the Law of the Medes and Persians
I prefer it as source of analysis to the PB Tories.
For my sins.
Given that anyone that's not a Labour supporter has been included as a PB Tory at one point or another, why would you even come here?
I have never been called a PB Tory. ...
Mr Observer, you, Sir, are a PBTory. You'll never be able to make that boast again! Seriously though, these labels that get slung about are rather pathetic. I have over the years on here been accused of being a rampant socialist and a baby-eating Thatcherite. Those that use such labels generally say more about themselves and their own ability to engage with the issues under debate than those they seek to label.
WATO Labour Shadow Housing Minister struggling on actual rent increases in the private sector. Labour have gone from policy based evidence to anecdote based policy.....
The Economist Blog is not the Law of the Medes and Persians
I prefer it as source of analysis to the PB Tories.
For my sins.
Then you need to be very careful. I used to subscribe to the Economist and then one week it did an article on a subject in which I was extremely knowledgeable. The content of that article was so inaccurate as to be laughable. Furthermore, if its author had just made some small enquiries (read a couple of papers or made a couple of phone calls, maybe, just really basic research) they would have found out very quickly how wrong they were. I cancelled my subscription that same day because if they were that wrong about one thing how could I trust them on things I knew little about.
This site has more subject experts (e.g. Neil on Pensions, Charles on the City and Mr. Jessop on software engineering) and more aggregated knowledge than the economist could ever dream of. You'll need to forget your tribalism to benefit though.
It is sheer tribalism that prevents any PB Tory from ever giving any Labour idea time of day...
Having read through the thread, the subject appears to have been covered quite extensively today, by several PB regulars representing several different parties.
The fact you dismiss these comments out of hand and insist on referring to them as one amorphous group because you don’t like what is being said, rather singles you out as the one suffering from tribalism.
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Ed Miliband's Euro election launch speech contains... no mention of Europe!
I approve!
These elections arent about where we stand in relation to membership of the EU (only Westminster can grant us the referendum we need on this, MEPS are impotent). They're about things like employment rights and pensions and environment protection etc..
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 24m Anti-UKIP elexn slogan in @TheSunNewspaper a bit catchier than CCHQ's:"If you vote silly, you get Mili" pic.twitter.com/UWGkh6riGi
Its strange how the Sun have turned on UKIP as it often reads as a UKIP election leaflet
These elections arent about where we stand in relation to membership of the EU (only Westminster can grant us the referendum we need on this, MEPS are impotent). They're about things like employment rights and pensions and environment protection etc..
I might be wrong, but I think he didn't mention any of those either.
Oh dear this thread is showing now the occasionally immature nature of this site. Whilst this site can be uplifting in its collective knowledge, tolerance and standards of debate it can occasionally get childish . Tim was a catalyst to that coming about and since he has gone the site has improved . Hopefully this is just a blip
The Economist Blog is not the Law of the Medes and Persians
I prefer it as source of analysis to the PB Tories.
For my sins.
Then you need to be very careful. I used to subscribe to the Economist and then one week it did an article on a subject in which I was extremely knowledgeable. The content of that article was so inaccurate as to be laughable. Furthermore, if its author had just made some small enquiries (read a couple of papers or made a couple of phone calls, maybe, just really basic research) they would have found out very quickly how wrong they were. I cancelled my subscription that same day because if they were that wrong about one thing how could I trust them on things I knew little about.
This site has more subject experts (e.g. Neil on Pensions, Charles on the City and Mr. Jessop on software engineering) and more aggregated knowledge than the economist could ever dream of. You'll need to forget your tribalism to benefit though.
It's very concerning when that sort of thing happens, Mr Llama, and I can understand your attitude. However, surely, assuming you had the time could you not have drawn the attention of the Editor to the failings of the piece in question, otherwise the journalist in question would unquestionably go on his (I assume) merry way misleading others through sloppy or even non-existent research?
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Because you use it to group and diminish the views of multiple people with different perspectives.
Trying reading and engaging with individuals on a thoughtful basis for once.
For instance, I have not posted today on the rents issue. This was because, for me, the real problem is that it will stall the institutionalisation of the BTL sector which would massively benefit tenants. But Richard Nabavi had made the point in which typically elegantly eloquent style - and included a link! - so there was no point in repeating his argument.
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
The Economist Blog is not the Law of the Medes and Persians
I prefer it as source of analysis to the PB Tories.
For my sins.
Then you need to be very careful. I used to subscribe to the Economist and then one week it did an article on a subject in which I was extremely knowledgeable. The content of that article was so inaccurate as to be laughable. Furthermore, if its author had just made some small enquiries (read a couple of papers or made a couple of phone calls, maybe, just really basic research) they would have found out very quickly how wrong they were. I cancelled my subscription that same day because if they were that wrong about one thing how could I trust them on things I knew little about.
This site has more subject experts (e.g. Neil on Pensions, Charles on the City and Mr. Jessop on software engineering) and more aggregated knowledge than the economist could ever dream of. You'll need to forget your tribalism to benefit though.
It's very concerning when that sort of thing happens, Mr Llama, and I can understand your attitude. However, surely, assuming you had the time could you not have drawn the attention of the Editor to the failings of the piece in question, otherwise the journalist in question would unquestionably go on his (I assume) merry way misleading others through sloppy or even non-existent research?
Mr. Cole, I did take the time to write to the editor and explain exactly why I had cancelled my subscription and what I thought of his editorial policies that allowed such a heap of drivel to be published. I had no reply, not even an acknowledgement, perhaps my letter got lost in the post. Still don't read the Economist, though.
Mind you, the only reason we still take the Telegraph is Herself's addiction to the cryptic crossword - the paper itself is rubbish these days.
Another Kipper caught being silly on social media. The value of this article is daddy riding to the rescue with everything that you don't say in such circumstances.
Since Ed now has 10 points, does it make twice as good as his previous one which had 5?
1. Stop the Government’s raid on pensioners and block its £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires 2. End rail rip-offs by capping fares increases on every route 3. Force the energy firms to cut gas and electricity bills for 4 million over-75s 4. Stop excessive fees charged by banks and low cost airlines 5. Defend working families from the raid on their tax credits by reversing the Government’s pension tax break for those earning over £150,000.
As David Hughes observed at the time (March 2012):
There you have it. Interventionist, economically illiterate and steeped in the values of the class war. If you were in any doubt that New Labour is dead and buried, here’s the evidence.
Worth comparing with Blair's 1997 landslide winner:
cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5-, 6- and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme
fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing
cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100 million saved from NHS red tape
get 250,000 under-25-year-olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities
no rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5 per cent and inflation and interest rates as low as possible
The Economist Blog is not the Law of the Medes and Persians
I prefer it as source of analysis to the PB Tories.
For my sins.
Then you need to be very careful. I used to subscribe to the Economist and then one week it did an article on a subject in which I was extremely knowledgeable. The content of that article was so inaccurate as to be laughable. Furthermore, if its author had just made some small enquiries (read a couple of papers or made a couple of phone calls, maybe, just really basic research) they would have found out very quickly how wrong they were. I cancelled my subscription that same day because if they were that wrong about one thing how could I trust them on things I knew little about.
This site has more subject experts (e.g. Neil on Pensions, Charles on the City and Mr. Jessop on software engineering) and more aggregated knowledge than the economist could ever dream of. You'll need to forget your tribalism to benefit though.
It's very concerning when that sort of thing happens, Mr Llama, and I can understand your attitude. However, surely, assuming you had the time could you not have drawn the attention of the Editor to the failings of the piece in question, otherwise the journalist in question would unquestionably go on his (I assume) merry way misleading others through sloppy or even non-existent research?
Mr. Cole, I did take the time to write to the editor and explain exactly why I had cancelled my subscription and what I thought of his editorial policies that allowed such a heap of drivel to be published. I had no reply, not even an acknowledgement, perhaps my letter got lost in the post. Still don't read the Economist, though.
Mind you, the only reason we still take the Telegraph is Herself's addiction to the cryptic crossword - the paper itself is rubbish these days.
Fair enough Mr Llama. A totally reasonable attitude.I at any rate am obliged for the advice.
I know one or two people of my political persuasion who take the Telegraph for the sports writing!
Average 140,890 107,680 30,837 2,390 ==============================================================
The private sector built an annual average of 170k dwellings before the crash. This fell to 105k in 2010-11 but has since recovered to 166k (from latest figures not included in table).
It is almost certain this figure will rise to 200k over the next two years.
So Ed's promise to build 200k dwellings a year is pure opportunism.
A further 50k is needed from the social sectors. That's where it gets difficult as there is no business model to support this expansion beyond additional government borrowing and subsidy.
Not surprising that Ed has been silent on this part of the 'cost of living crisis'. See Labour's dismal record on council house build above.
“Last night he came home at 10.30pm with a curry.”
Brilliant, that's the biggest laugh I've had all year .
All part of the charm though - his Dad is quite obviously an ordinary person who hasn't had an ounce of media training in his life, the naivety of his defence all adds the charm and gaiety of the kipper's anti-establishment stance.
Talking about Japan and impact of rent controls, I heard an interesting radio piece about why Japanese house prices haven't risen for many many years.
Yes we know the Japanese population is in decline, so not the sort of pressure on the market that has kept the UK prices high, but actually according to the radio piece (Freakonomics podcast) the real reason is that the average lifespan of a Japanese house is just over 30 years.
The culture have become that you build your house, you live in it and when you sell it the next person comes along and knocks it down and rebuilds. Thus, there is no incentive with upkeep or improvements and effectively the price paid is not for the house but for the land. Furthermore, it is incredibly wasteful both in time, money and resources.
If that was the explanation then it shouldn't stop _land_ prices rising, but they're static or dropping as well.
BTW, the thing about knocking your house down after 30 years is mostly a government-orchestrated stitch-up to look after the construction industry, which is generous with political donations. If you're buying a house you probably need either a bank loan or a gift from your parents. The banks won't give you a loan on an old house, and gifts attract a heavy gift tax - except that there's a tax break on houses, that you can't get for old houses. People will quite happily live in houses quite a lot older than that as long as they don't have to actually buy them.
"The baby boom generation came of age when it was accepted knowledge that innovation and productivity would always lead to higher standards of living. The generations which followed assumed this truth would continue into the future indefinitely. With the crash of 2008 the upward mobility the middle classes assumed was their right evaporated, and it is unlikely to return.
Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, asks how the work force of the future will be changed by the advancements of technologies. How should governments respond to a jobs market which is hollowing out opportunities for traditional educated professions and how will rewards for innovation and income for labour be distributed without creating a society plagued by endemic inequality?
We will speak with optimists and pessimists on both sides of the argument to find out how the repercussions of these changes will affect the way we all live now and well into the future."
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Er, I didn't say you were a PB Tory Socca. Always thought you were a PB Kipper (is this right?) and indeed a PB Democrat (when it comes to US politics).
There is a very big difference. Labour has also pledged to build 200,000 new homes. You can say that this won't happen too, if you like.
No, it will happen. But not due to any policy or action of Ed's.
DCLG: Permanent dwellings completed ============================================================== Housing Local Association Authority ============================================================== LABOUR -------------------------------------------------------------- Average 24,797 492 ============================================================== COALITION -------------------------------------------------------------- Average 30,837 2,390 ==============================================================
So the coalition has presided over greater social housing building than Labour?
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Er, I didn't say you were a PB Tory Socca. Always thought you were a PB Kipper (is this right?) and indeed a PB Democrat (when it comes to US politics).
Pretty sure I never said you were a Tory!!
You probably voted LibDem in the last GE like most of the PBLabour loyalists.
That is a spoof, isn't it? Surely no serious political party could have put out that - more holes than a Swiss cheese.
Assuming, for the moment, it isn't a spoof has any graphologist looked at his signature? I am know expert but it looks weird to me, that big gap, and no connection, between the first and surname. Creepy.
Talking about Japan and impact of rent controls, I heard an interesting radio piece about why Japanese house prices haven't risen for many many years.
Yes we know the Japanese population is in decline, so not the sort of pressure on the market that has kept the UK prices high, but actually according to the radio piece (Freakonomics podcast) the real reason is that the average lifespan of a Japanese house is just over 30 years.
The culture have become that you build your house, you live in it and when you sell it the next person comes along and knocks it down and rebuilds. Thus, there is no incentive with upkeep or improvements and effectively the price paid is not for the house but for the land. Furthermore, it is incredibly wasteful both in time, money and resources.
If that was the explanation then it shouldn't stop _land_ prices rising, but they're static or dropping as well.
BTW, the thing about knocking your house down after 30 years is mostly a government-orchestrated stitch-up to look after the construction industry, which is generous with political donations. If you're buying a house you probably need either a bank loan or a gift from your parents. The banks won't give you a loan on an old house, and gifts attract a heavy gift tax - except that there's a tax break on houses, that you can't get for old houses. People will quite happily live in houses quite a lot older than that as long as they don't have to actually buy them.
Perhaps it's a hangover from all the earthquakes and tsunamis that meant everything had to be re-built every 30 years anyway?
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Er, I didn't say you were a PB Tory Socca. Always thought you were a PB Kipper (is this right?) and indeed a PB Democrat (when it comes to US politics).
Pretty sure I never said you were a Tory!!
I lean towards UKIP, will definitely vote for them in the Euros, but am undecided for the general.
Which "PB Tory" were you talking about finding the term insulting?
“Last night he came home at 10.30pm with a curry.”
Brilliant, that's the biggest laugh I've had all year .
All part of the charm though - his Dad is quite obviously an ordinary person who hasn't had an ounce of media training in his life, the naivety of his defence all adds the charm and gaiety of the kipper's anti-establishment stance.
It's hilarious, it's the sort of thing they'd make up on the Mash etc
“Last night he came home at 10.30pm with a curry.”
Brilliant, that's the biggest laugh I've had all year .
All part of the charm though - his Dad is quite obviously an ordinary person who hasn't had an ounce of media training in his life, the naivety of his defence all adds the charm and gaiety of the kipper's anti-establishment stance.
The kind of things he said there, rightly or wrongly, are what almost everyone I know round my way would say for a laugh.
Maybe he is just too young to be involved in politics
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Er, I didn't say you were a PB Tory Socca. Always thought you were a PB Kipper (is this right?) and indeed a PB Democrat (when it comes to US politics).
Pretty sure I never said you were a Tory!!
You probably voted LibDem in the last GE like most of the PBLabour loyalists.
I did indeed vote Liberal last time so in that regard I am a Red Liberal, yes.
The uncharitable might describe it as "headline grabbing policy which won't change much and might cause some damage......"
That sounds like a relatively strong endorsement of a policy an opposition comes up with in the "pandering" phase. They often cause quite serious damage when enacted. The good thing about Ed Miliband's panders is that they do a lot less in practice than they sound like they do, and when it comes to pre-election policies "does less" generally means "does less damage".
I see the 200,000 new homes point is on there. Is there a single Labour supporter on pb who can explain how he's going to do that? Is it knocking down houses and replacing them with blocks of flats? Building on back gardens? Building on the green belt? Is there any detail at all?
I see the 200,000 new homes point is on there. Is there a single Labour supporter on pb who can explain how he's going to do that? Is it knocking down houses and replacing them with blocks of flats? Building on back gardens? Building on the green belt? Is there any detail at all?
I'm not sure if I qualify as a Labour supporter - I'd vote for them depending on the tactical position and candidate - but since the economy is growing and you can make a lot of money building houses, they don't need to do anything, do they?
Now we can argue about whether this is true or not. Obviously I don't agree... BNP judge people on skin colour/UKIP don't is the major flaw in the argument, but then set that quote against these findings from 2011
"Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK"
I think that is why the media attacks on UKIP's "racism" this-ism & that-ism just don't work. There was a market for what they are offering before they were popular, and they have tapped into it, not necessarily vice versa. The attacks on UKIP are proxy for attacks on millions of people who felt this way for a long while, they aren't attacks on UKIP.
Talking about Japan and impact of rent controls, I heard an interesting radio piece about why Japanese house prices haven't risen for many many years.
Yes we know the Japanese population is in decline, so not the sort of pressure on the market that has kept the UK prices high, but actually according to the radio piece (Freakonomics podcast) the real reason is that the average lifespan of a Japanese house is just over 30 years.
The culture have become that you build your house, you live in it and when you sell it the next person comes along and knocks it down and rebuilds. Thus, there is no incentive with upkeep or improvements and effectively the price paid is not for the house but for the land. Furthermore, it is incredibly wasteful both in time, money and resources.
If that was the explanation then it shouldn't stop _land_ prices rising, but they're static or dropping as well.
BTW, the thing about knocking your house down after 30 years is mostly a government-orchestrated stitch-up to look after the construction industry, which is generous with political donations. If you're buying a house you probably need either a bank loan or a gift from your parents. The banks won't give you a loan on an old house, and gifts attract a heavy gift tax - except that there's a tax break on houses, that you can't get for old houses. People will quite happily live in houses quite a lot older than that as long as they don't have to actually buy them.
Perhaps it's a hangover from all the earthquakes and tsunamis that meant everything had to be re-built every 30 years anyway?
Why should land prices shoot up and up if there is reduced demand in terms of less people and also the overall economic picture?
In terms of the rebuild, yes it was stated that is was in part to do with the earthquake threat (both in terms of real new regulations and also perceived safety of new homes), but that didn't account for all of it.
"In Yoshida’s estimation, while land continues to hold value, physical homes become worthless within 30 years. Other studies have shown this to happen in as little as 15 years."
The interesting thing about the cost of living contract in this form is that it strongly implies that Labour will have no more policies before the election to address "the cost of living crisis".
With a year to go to the general election, where will Labour focus next?
I see the 200,000 new homes point is on there. Is there a single Labour supporter on pb who can explain how he's going to do that? Is it knocking down houses and replacing them with blocks of flats? Building on back gardens? Building on the green belt? Is there any detail at all?
I'm not sure if I qualify as a Labour supporter - I'd vote for them depending on the tactical position and candidate - but since the economy is growing and you can make a lot of money building houses, they don't need to do anything, do they?
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Er, I didn't say you were a PB Tory Socca. Always thought you were a PB Kipper (is this right?) and indeed a PB Democrat (when it comes to US politics).
Pretty sure I never said you were a Tory!!
Jeez, why are you so concerned as to get him set into one of your categories? Labelling people is not a good idea. At its heart the practise of labelling people is no different from racism, because you are applying judgements to groups not individuals (he is black, therefore he has a natural sense of rhythm ain't much different to he voted Tory therefore he eats babies), so why do you do it?
I see the 200,000 new homes point is on there. Is there a single Labour supporter on pb who can explain how he's going to do that? Is it knocking down houses and replacing them with blocks of flats? Building on back gardens? Building on the green belt? Is there any detail at all?
I'm not sure if I qualify as a Labour supporter - I'd vote for them depending on the tactical position and candidate - but since the economy is growing and you can make a lot of money building houses, they don't need to do anything, do they?
Even in the boom years, we weren't getting the consistent number of new homes that were required to be built...and that is when massive amounts of money was on offer to be made on any sort of development and mortgages were given away in cereal packets.
The big barrier is the planning system and not helped by the government poking its nose into stuff like putting conditions on number of car parking spots.
This rent thing, has anyone got a link to the actual proposed policy? From what I have read so far I don't think capping rent increases over a three year period is a big deal and it certainly doesn't appear to be a return to the disastrous rent controls of the 60s and 70s. What I want to find out, and where I think the danger might actually lay, is this business of three year tenancies.Is such a term going to be mandatory? If not what exceptions will be allowed?
Alternatively, if it will be permissible for a landlord and tenant to come to a mutually agreeable term, what is the point of the damned policy in the first place?
It's the proposed default, just as the present default is 6 months binding, then one month notice for tenants and two for landlords. When I was looking for a flat in London two years ago, the default was ubiquitous, and you really had to struggle to get agents to consider anything else. I'd expect much the same - as you say, anything else can be agreed, but in practice agents with large number of fast-moving rental deals just don't want to bother.
Now we can argue about whether this is true or not. Obviously I don't agree... BNP judge people on skin colour/UKIP don't is the major flaw in the argument, but then set that quote against these findings from 2011
"Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK"
I think that is why the media attacks on UKIP's "racism" this-ism & that-ism just don't work. There was a market for what they are offering before they were popular, and they have tapped into it, not necessarily vice versa. The attacks on UKIP are proxy for attacks on millions of people who felt this way for a long while, they aren't attacks on UKIP.
There was an England only YouGov poll the other day, where 23% thought UKIP were the party that "best stands up for the interests of England".
I see the 200,000 new homes point is on there. Is there a single Labour supporter on pb who can explain how he's going to do that? Is it knocking down houses and replacing them with blocks of flats? Building on back gardens? Building on the green belt? Is there any detail at all?
I'm not sure if I qualify as a Labour supporter - I'd vote for them depending on the tactical position and candidate - but since the economy is growing and you can make a lot of money building houses, they don't need to do anything, do they?
I'm guessing some new policy would be needed to get a 190% increase.
That says 67,000 registered in the first half of the year, so given a year of two halves you start at 134,000. And there may be more if they're not all getting registered with the organization they're quoting.
It's the proposed default, just as the present default is 6 months binding, then one month notice for tenants and two for landlords. When I was looking for a flat in London two years ago, the default was ubiquitous, and you really had to struggle to get agents to consider anything else. I'd expect much the same - as you say, anything else can be agreed, but in practice agents with large number of fast-moving rental deals just don't want to bother.
When the default is 6 months that may be true. Doesn't mean it will be true when it's 3 years.
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Er, I didn't say you were a PB Tory Socca. Always thought you were a PB Kipper (is this right?) and indeed a PB Democrat (when it comes to US politics).
Pretty sure I never said you were a Tory!!
Jeez, why are you so concerned as to get him set into one of your categories? Labelling people is not a good idea. At its heart the practise of labelling people is no different from racism, because you are applying judgements to groups not individuals (he is black, therefore he has a natural sense of rhythm ain't much different to he voted Tory therefore he eats babies), so why do you do it?
Bit of a stretch. No problem with people calling me a leftie, what's the problem with calling a Tory a Tory?
Why the hell is PB Tory deemed such an insult by Tories??
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
Who do you think is deeming it an insult? You seem to be reacting to my post, even though I have made clear on a number of occasions I'm not a Tory and am highly critical of David Cameron.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Er, I didn't say you were a PB Tory Socca. Always thought you were a PB Kipper (is this right?) and indeed a PB Democrat (when it comes to US politics).
Pretty sure I never said you were a Tory!!
Jeez, why are you so concerned as to get him set into one of your categories? Labelling people is not a good idea. At its heart the practise of labelling people is no different from racism, because you are applying judgements to groups not individuals (he is black, therefore he has a natural sense of rhythm ain't much different to he voted Tory therefore he eats babies), so why do you do it?
Bit of a stretch. No problem with people calling me a leftie, what's the problem with calling a Tory a Tory?
You aren't calling a tory a tory though, you are calling a whole group of people "PB Tories" which, as you know, is proxy for calling them a herd of sheep
The interesting thing about the cost of living contract in this form is that it strongly implies that Labour will have no more policies before the election to address "the cost of living crisis".
With a year to go to the general election, where will Labour focus next?
Terrible as it might be to contemplate, this could be it. They do say that repetition has amazing effects - just ask Gove on the benefits of rote learning - but you may want to look elsewhere if you were hoping to hear something novel from the Labour leader.
So it appears it hit ~200,000 for 2 years, right in the middle of the mega boom, but before that (and the economy growing strongly) i.e early 2000's, way short. And I believe 200k a year still isn't enough for what is required.
I am presuming the 200,000 a year figure, so often touted by politicians as goal, comes from looking at the booming house building times and thinking with a little bit of a push can get back to it, when in the UK never consistently built that many houses a year in recent history.
It's the proposed default, just as the present default is 6 months binding, then one month notice for tenants and two for landlords.
I see our resident Labour candidate is already rowing back from Ed's lunacy.
No, Nick, it's not a 'proposed default', and 'anything else can be agreed', it's a proposed law:
Today I can announce, if we win the general election, we will legislate to make three year tenancies, not short-term tenancies, the standard for those who rent their homes in the private sector.
Admittedly the provisions are so barmy that it's impossible to see how any even vaguely workable legislation could be framed to implement them, but that is what Ed said.
Now we can argue about whether this is true or not. Obviously I don't agree... BNP judge people on skin colour/UKIP don't is the major flaw in the argument, but then set that quote against these findings from 2011
"Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK"
I think that is why the media attacks on UKIP's "racism" this-ism & that-ism just don't work. There was a market for what they are offering before they were popular, and they have tapped into it, not necessarily vice versa. The attacks on UKIP are proxy for attacks on millions of people who felt this way for a long while, they aren't attacks on UKIP.
There was an England only YouGov poll the other day, where 23% thought UKIP were the party that "best stands up for the interests of England".
Thought that was a disappointing score actually, but 19% said "no one does" and 15% "Don't Know", so you could say that was 23/66 which is 35%... sounds more like it
I think it's fair to say that Hopi Sen - no PB Tory - is not impressed, polite though (as always) he is:
That takes us back, as ever, to the need to build, and for the moment at least, to make sure we don’t do too much that might lead to landlords removing their properties from the rental market and selling them to those who can afford to buy now.
After all, the one short term problem we could really do without is a whole bunch of people who can’t afford to buy, and then discover there’s nowhere to rent. Ultimately, until will build, any regulatory solution is eventually going to hit that problem.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#London_polls
both UKIP and the Conservatives are down, but still level. Does that suggest Survation and YouGov are using different weighting?
Now we know what you actually watch. Oh dear!
All the "PB Tories" disagreeing with you today have done so on the actual content of the policy debate. You have not.
Anti-UKIP elexn slogan in @TheSunNewspaper a bit catchier than CCHQ's:"If you vote silly, you get Mili" pic.twitter.com/UWGkh6riGi
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1
Ed Miliband's Euro election launch speech contains... no mention of Europe!
The fact you dismiss these comments out of hand and insist on referring to them as one amorphous group because you don’t like what is being said, rather singles you out as the one suffering from tribalism.
The PB Lefties and PB Gnats (or whatever they are called) don't take such offence as far as I can see.
It's similar to the fact that certain posters object to being called merely Tories even though they vote Tory, support the Conservative Party and want a Tory government!
These elections arent about where we stand in relation to membership of the EU (only Westminster can grant us the referendum we need on this, MEPS are impotent). They're about things like employment rights and pensions and environment protection etc..
Though the kind of poster who resorts to PB Tory / PB Hodge etc.. is usually the kind of poster it's best to quickly scroll past.
Neither did the Labour PEB! Quite staggering really
Trying reading and engaging with individuals on a thoughtful basis for once.
For instance, I have not posted today on the rents issue. This was because, for me, the real problem is that it will stall the institutionalisation of the BTL sector which would massively benefit tenants. But Richard Nabavi had made the point in which typically elegantly eloquent style - and included a link! - so there was no point in repeating his argument.
Why be so childish?
Not to mention how ludicrous it is to call people PB this or PB that and then accuse anyone else of tribalism!
Battsby @Battsby 2h
UKIP-Home Office Bunfight Over Farage Visit 'Ban': http://guyfawk.es/PQOB4g via @guidofawkes
Home Office bans Farage.
http://action.labour.org.uk/index.php/cost-of-living-contract
That is absolute quality!
Hmm
Seems UKIP won't be getting the pink vote !
Also noted that Jeremy "Jezza" Clarkson seems to be in trouble in the Mirror, apparently he couldn't catch someone by their toe or some such !
Concrete over the countryside by 2020
Stop families that rent, leaving them homeless
Cut income for hardworking people through a lower 10p starting tax rate, and introduce a 50p top rate of tax
Ban employment contracts
Exacerbate unemployment by strengthening the Minimum Wage
Ban small businesses
Copy coalition plans on childcare
British jobs for British workers
Create lots of useless jobs for young people, fully funded by the taxpayer.
But this all demonstrates your epistemic closure. I have criticised Labour's proposal. Therefore I must be a PB Tory. As I am a PB Tory, my criticism of Labour's proposal can be dismissed. It's a water tight belief system.
Mind you, the only reason we still take the Telegraph is Herself's addiction to the cryptic crossword - the paper itself is rubbish these days.
Lab 32.5%
Con 31.7%
LD 22.4%
Green 6.6%
BNP 1.7%
Ind 1.1%
UKIP 1.1%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFBKVmJGYkhwYTRFeGpVZlg2bTRIZUE&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=899
Awesome - 'granny power' at its finest. ; )
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/ukip-teenage-election-candidate-defends-7057062#.U2JBsaqMr2o.twitter
European Parliament (London Region) Voting Intention
(Changes from 2009 results)
LAB 39% (+ 17%)
CON 21% (- 7%)
LD 13% (- 1%)
UKIP 20% (+ 9%)
GREEN 7% (- 4%)
Seat Projection:
LAB 3 (+ 1)
CON 2 (- 1)
LD 1 (NC)
UKIP 2 (+ 1)
GREEN 0 (-1)
1. Stop the Government’s raid on pensioners and block its £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires
2. End rail rip-offs by capping fares increases on every route
3. Force the energy firms to cut gas and electricity bills for 4 million over-75s
4. Stop excessive fees charged by banks and low cost airlines
5. Defend working families from the raid on their tax credits by reversing the Government’s pension tax break for those earning over £150,000.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100147661/ed-miliband-finally-kills-off-new-labour-with-a-five-point-pledge-card/
As David Hughes observed at the time (March 2012):
There you have it. Interventionist, economically illiterate and steeped in the values of the class war. If you were in any doubt that New Labour is dead and buried, here’s the evidence.
Worth comparing with Blair's 1997 landslide winner:
cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5-, 6- and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme
fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing
cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100 million saved from NHS red tape
get 250,000 under-25-year-olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities
no rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5 per cent and inflation and interest rates as low as possible
I know one or two people of my political persuasion who take the Telegraph for the sports writing!
There is a very big difference. Labour has also pledged to build 200,000 new homes. You can say that this won't happen too, if you like.
No, it will happen. But not due to any policy or action of Ed's. The private sector built an annual average of 170k dwellings before the crash. This fell to 105k in 2010-11 but has since recovered to 166k (from latest figures not included in table).
It is almost certain this figure will rise to 200k over the next two years.
So Ed's promise to build 200k dwellings a year is pure opportunism.
A further 50k is needed from the social sectors. That's where it gets difficult as there is no business model to support this expansion beyond additional government borrowing and subsidy.
Not surprising that Ed has been silent on this part of the 'cost of living crisis'. See Labour's dismal record on council house build above.
“He is the least sexist and racist person you could ever meet,....“Last night he came home at 10.30pm with a curry.”
“Last night he came home at 10.30pm with a curry.” Brilliant, that's the biggest laugh I've had all year
All part of the charm though - his Dad is quite obviously an ordinary person who hasn't had an ounce of media training in his life, the naivety of his defence all adds the charm and gaiety of the kipper's anti-establishment stance.
BTW, the thing about knocking your house down after 30 years is mostly a government-orchestrated stitch-up to look after the construction industry, which is generous with political donations. If you're buying a house you probably need either a bank loan or a gift from your parents. The banks won't give you a loan on an old house, and gifts attract a heavy gift tax - except that there's a tax break on houses, that you can't get for old houses. People will quite happily live in houses quite a lot older than that as long as they don't have to actually buy them.
Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, asks how the work force of the future will be changed by the advancements of technologies. How should governments respond to a jobs market which is hollowing out opportunities for traditional educated professions and how will rewards for innovation and income for labour be distributed without creating a society plagued by endemic inequality?
We will speak with optimists and pessimists on both sides of the argument to find out how the repercussions of these changes will affect the way we all live now and well into the future."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042jfvz
Pretty sure I never said you were a Tory!!
Bloody pinkos!
Assuming, for the moment, it isn't a spoof has any graphologist looked at his signature? I am know expert but it looks weird to me, that big gap, and no connection, between the first and surname. Creepy.
Which "PB Tory" were you talking about finding the term insulting?
Maybe he is just too young to be involved in politics
How pathetic by Theresa May.
"Ukip are the BNP without the bother. They don't have a violent streak."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/473181/Ukip-voters-need-to-be-educated-claims-Labour-grandee
Now we can argue about whether this is true or not. Obviously I don't agree... BNP judge people on skin colour/UKIP don't is the major flaw in the argument, but then set that quote against these findings from 2011
"Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
I think that is why the media attacks on UKIP's "racism" this-ism & that-ism just don't work. There was a market for what they are offering before they were popular, and they have tapped into it, not necessarily vice versa. The attacks on UKIP are proxy for attacks on millions of people who felt this way for a long while, they aren't attacks on UKIP.
In terms of the rebuild, yes it was stated that is was in part to do with the earthquake threat (both in terms of real new regulations and also perceived safety of new homes), but that didn't account for all of it.
"In Yoshida’s estimation, while land continues to hold value, physical homes become worthless within 30 years. Other studies have shown this to happen in as little as 15 years."
http://freakonomics.com/2014/02/27/why-are-japanese-homes-disposable-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-3/
Definitely a good place to be an architect, not so much a handyman.
You have only to support UKIP in 2015 to find out...
It occurs to me that one way to reduce the cost of living would be to let people keep more of their own money by reducing taxation.
It's a novel approach these days, I realise.
With a year to go to the general election, where will Labour focus next?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10203032/Number-of-new-homes-hits-5-year-high-says-industry.html
I'm guessing some new policy would be needed to get a 190% increase.
The big barrier is the planning system and not helped by the government poking its nose into stuff like putting conditions on number of car parking spots.
http://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/10022/
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/12/article-2113704-1221A931000005DC-487_634x398.jpg
So it appears it hit ~200,000 for 2 years, right in the middle of the mega boom, but before that (and the economy growing strongly) i.e early 2000's, way short. And I believe 200k a year still isn't enough for what is required.
I am presuming the 200,000 a year figure, so often touted by politicians as goal, comes from looking at the booming house building times and thinking with a little bit of a push can get back to it, when in the UK never consistently built that many houses a year in recent history.
No, Nick, it's not a 'proposed default', and 'anything else can be agreed', it's a proposed law:
Today I can announce, if we win the general election, we will legislate to make three year tenancies, not short-term tenancies, the standard for those who rent their homes in the private sector.
Admittedly the provisions are so barmy that it's impossible to see how any even vaguely workable legislation could be framed to implement them, but that is what Ed said.
One says to the other: "Do you know how to drive this thing?"
---
Now, however, they do...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27241688
So we finally have an answer to that question about the chicken and the egg.
The chicken came first, then the egg.
That takes us back, as ever, to the need to build, and for the moment at least, to make sure we don’t do too much that might lead to landlords removing their properties from the rental market and selling them to those who can afford to buy now.
After all, the one short term problem we could really do without is a whole bunch of people who can’t afford to buy, and then discover there’s nowhere to rent. Ultimately, until will build, any regulatory solution is eventually going to hit that problem.
http://hopisen.com/2014/labour-and-rent-demands-and-supply/
Anyway another lunatic for the ignore list...