....the Spectator misreads Ed’s agenda as that of Michael Foot, 1983 and not it’s true inspiration: Margaret Thatcher, 1979. Thatcher was dangerous to her opponents and the economic model she overturned.
Last month Dr Gasper wrote on her blog: "There are far too many homosexuals in Parliament." She added: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."
The party backed Dr Gasper, saying she was expressing a personal opinion but was "factually correct"."
Apparently she was formerly a UKIP candidate, which she presumably left after finding they opposed gay marriage but not gay birth.
Last month Dr Gasper wrote on her blog: "There are far too many homosexuals in Parliament." She added: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."
The party backed Dr Gasper, saying she was expressing a personal opinion but was "factually correct"."
Apparently she was formerly a UKIP candidate, which she presumably left after finding they opposed gay marriage but not gay birth.
She is bonkers, and not "factually correct" at all.
She was made to stand down as Chairman of UKIP's Oxford Branch, after going off on one of her rants.
This is a classic from her blog - Why Should MPs Get Cheap Champagne?:
"Members of Parliament are meant to be in the House of Commons to work. Yet tests on the outward drainage system have shown that some of them have drugs in their system and they enjoy a range of bars and common-rooms that provide cheap wine, beer, and spirits. Why?"
Complete nonsense - £32.50p for a second rate Moet is not 'cheap'.
Overall, the Labour intervention raises one of the essential essay questions of this Parliament: “Ed Miliband is good at analysing the British political mood, but bad at developing policies to respond to it. Discuss.”
He was PM - he gets the blame. Thacher demonstrated that, with carefully planning and cautious steps, the problem wasn't intractable
It was bloody intractable. Don't underestimate the Thatcher miracle; very, very few people at the time believed it to be possible.
And yes, of course Heath gets some of the blame; he was weak and made misjudgements, but he did try to do something about it, as Wilson had before him. What you have to understand, though, is that they didn't have the public's support for the battle; we hadn't, as a country, finally confronted the reality. The entire public mood, and the establishment view, was that we should fudge and hope for the best, that nothing more could be done.
Maggie was able to rescue the country through a mixture of four things, which came together at the same time: her own strength of purpose and moral clarity, the fact that the public had finally, by 1979, got so sick and tired of the wreckers that they were receptive to taking them on, the luck that the Falklands War boosted her position at just the right time, and the fact that she had some really good support from Tebbutt, Keith Joseph and a handful of others.
It was still a close-run thing: there was nothing inevitable about her success, and I don't think it could have been achieved in the period before her premiership, given that the In Place of Strife opportunity had been thrown away.
A good chunk of what Thatcher did was just a re-hash of Heath's policies in a more fertile environment. And even then her early years were marked more by caution and defeat than success. It was until a few years in that anything really started going her way.
In service to the over-aggrandising of Thatcher, Heath gets a bit of a raw deal.
Nigel Farage has hit out at "taxpayer-funded" protesters who he says are trying to prevent Ukip from spreading its message, after he was hit with an egg during a visit to Nottingham today.
Of the protests against him so far during his national tour, Mr Farage said: "They're organised, they're taxpayer funded and they're going around the country chasing me around trying to stop us from getting our message out.
Is cos they are out of work, or is it something very different?
Yet tests on the outward drainage system have shown that some of them have drugs in their system .... Why?"
I would have thought drugs were necessary for putting up with the likes of her.
Arf - I'm sure it helps. - But you do have to admire the tenacity of the boffin who brought this ‘fact’ to the world’s attention. Retrieving piddle in a beaker whilst hanging off Westminster bridge can’t be an easy task.
Nigel Farage has hit out at "taxpayer-funded" protesters who he says are trying to prevent Ukip from spreading its message, after he was hit with an egg during a visit to Nottingham today.
Of the protests against him so far during his national tour, Mr Farage said: "They're organised, they're taxpayer funded and they're going around the country chasing me around trying to stop us from getting our message out.
Is cos they are out of work, or is it something very different?
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Nigel Farage has hit out at "taxpayer-funded" protesters who he says are trying to prevent Ukip from spreading its message, after he was hit with an egg during a visit to Nottingham today.
Of the protests against him so far during his national tour, Mr Farage said: "They're organised, they're taxpayer funded and they're going around the country chasing me around trying to stop us from getting our message out.
Is cos they are out of work, or is it something very different?
He was PM - he gets the blame. Thacher demonstrated that, with carefully planning and cautious steps, the problem wasn't intractable
It was bloody intractable. Don't underestimate the Thatcher miracle; very, very few people at the time believed it to be possible.
And yes, of course Heath gets some of the blame; he was weak and made misjudgements, but he did try to do something about it, as Wilson had before him. What you have to understand, though, is that they didn't have the public's support for the battle; we hadn't, as a country, finally confronted the reality. The entire public mood, and the establishment view, was that we should fudge and hope for the best, that nothing more could be done.
Maggie was able to rescue the country through a mixture of four things, which came together at the same time: her own strength of purpose and moral clarity, the fact that the public had finally, by 1979, got so sick and tired of the wreckers that they were receptive to taking them on, the luck that the Falklands War boosted her position at just the right time, and the fact that she had some really good support from Tebbutt, Keith Joseph and a handful of others.
It was still a close-run thing: there was nothing inevitable about her success, and I don't think it could have been achieved in the period before her premiership, given that the In Place of Strife opportunity had been thrown away.
A good chunk of what Thatcher did was just a re-hash of Heath's policies in a more fertile environment. And even then her early years were marked more by caution and defeat than success. It was until a few years in that anything really started going her way.
In service to the over-aggrandising of Thatcher, Heath gets a bit of a raw deal.
Yet but Heath introduced some of the same policies, but he abandoned them under pressure.
"Just in Time" is the best Thatcher book I've come across.
Thanks for switching the light on about Hope not Hate. Tolerance is a virtue, tis a pity that some want to shut down Farrage, without letting him talk his way out of credibility.
Nigel Farage has hit out at "taxpayer-funded" protesters who he says are trying to prevent Ukip from spreading its message, after he was hit with an egg during a visit to Nottingham today.
Of the protests against him so far during his national tour, Mr Farage said: "They're organised, they're taxpayer funded and they're going around the country chasing me around trying to stop us from getting our message out.
Is cos they are out of work, or is it something very different?
It's tinfoil hat territory.
It's only a matter of time, before he goes 'all Tapestry' and accuses powerful EU dark forces of crashing his Cessna with HAARP.
Last month Dr Gasper wrote on her blog: "There are far too many homosexuals in Parliament." She added: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."
The party backed Dr Gasper, saying she was expressing a personal opinion but was "factually correct"."
Apparently she was formerly a UKIP candidate, which she presumably left after finding they opposed gay marriage but not gay birth.
She is bonkers, and not "factually correct" at all.
She was made to stand down as Chairman of UKIP's Oxford Branch, after going off on one of her rants.
This is a classic from her blog - Why Should MPs Get Cheap Champagne?:
"Members of Parliament are meant to be in the House of Commons to work. Yet tests on the outward drainage system have shown that some of them have drugs in their system and they enjoy a range of bars and common-rooms that provide cheap wine, beer, and spirits. Why?"
Complete nonsense - £32.50p for a second rate Moet is not 'cheap'.
I agree £32.50 for second rate champagne is outrageous. not cheap. The Palace of Westminster does serve booze at very reasonable prices though. The last time I was there for lunch I had a very nice claret for a price that couldn't have been beaten anywhere else in central London and the food itself was very cheap. A quick search shows that as late as last year the taxpayer was subsidising MPs booze and food to the tune of nearly £6m a year.
It is outrageous really, MPs are paid £60k plus a year, plus enormous expenses on a scale the HMRC would never allow ordinary folk and then get subsidised food and booze on top of that.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich. Trickle up is not an economic model that has any merit.
@HurstLlama, @SimonStClare - I share your views on Moet, but I've been told by some of my wine buff friends that it has recently improved considerably. I shall report back when I've had a chance to investigate this claim.
Nigel Farage has hit out at "taxpayer-funded" protesters who he says are trying to prevent Ukip from spreading its message, after he was hit with an egg during a visit to Nottingham today.
Of the protests against him so far during his national tour, Mr Farage said: "They're organised, they're taxpayer funded and they're going around the country chasing me around trying to stop us from getting our message out.
Is cos they are out of work, or is it something very different?
It's tinfoil hat territory.
It's only a matter of time, before he goes 'all Tapestry' and accuses powerful EU dark forces of crashing his Cessna with HAARP.
Moodys " In terms of credit positive elements, Moody's notes that Scottish independence would eliminate the current fiscal transfers between Scotland and the remaining regions of the UK, marginally improving fiscal dynamics for the remainder of the UK given higher Scottish per capita public expenditures and Scotland's older demographic profile. Any division of revenues from North Sea oil would be largely credit neutral for the UK sovereign given that they are small, and declining, relative to the size the UK economy."
"In service to the over-aggrandising of Thatcher, Heath gets a bit of a raw deal."
No, no, no! Heath does not get a raw deal. He may not have been the worst PM since the war but he was bloody useless, did incalculable harm and was fundamentally dishonest in his dealings with the British people. The idea that he gets a raw deal is revisionist nonsense as anyone who lived through his period in office will tell you.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Thanks for switching the light on about Hope not Hate. Tolerance is a virtue, tis a pity that some want to shut down Farrage, without letting him talk his way out of credibility.
Unite Against Fascism appear to be the thug wing of the Labour Party.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
@HurstLlama, @SimonStClare - I share your views on Moet, but I've been told by some of my wine buff friends that it has recently improved considerably. I shall report back when I've had a chance to investigate this claim.
Mr. N., if you want someone to help in your investigations you only need ask. However, as discussed on here previously, a bottle of fizz from the Nyetimber, Ridgeview, or Bolney estates (all in Sussex) will be superior to anything but the very best from France and far better value.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
Police are investigating whether documents presented in that case were falsified. A doctor whose signature appears on some of the letters says he only wrote two of them.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
No idea, but she's a fairly credible source. Keep in mind that merely owning the property is a very good return right now, and has been for years. Rental income is on top of that.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
"In service to the over-aggrandising of Thatcher, Heath gets a bit of a raw deal."
No, no, no! Heath does not get a raw deal. He may not have been the worst PM since the war but he was bloody useless, did incalculable harm and was fundamentally dishonest in his dealings with the British people. The idea that he gets a raw deal is revisionist nonsense as anyone who lived through his period in office will tell you.
He really does, especially in people's claims he was timid, and not least through people having to account for him being on a more difficult pitch than Thatcher was. And living through something certainly doesn't guarantee greater understanding.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
Anyway, what on earth is this nonsense about 'rewarding having money'? It's called INVESTMENT, it's a good thing, right? Those investors could just buy a property and leave it empty, or use it themselves as a London pied-a-terre, getting all of the capital appreciation (if there is any) without the depreciation, massive hassle, aggravation, and risk associated with tenants. Or they could buy a property abroad. Or they could buy shares. Of course they are rewarded for their investment - how the hell do you think the world works?
And if your claim is 'Ah yes, but the rewards are excessive', then how in the name of Midas would state interference to reduce the attractiveness of the proposition improve things? It would obviously have the opposite effect, causing investors to insist on higher returns to offset the increased risks.
Plus, if it's such a wonderful investment, why are the returns not being driven down by competition?
Nigel Farage has hit out at "taxpayer-funded" protesters who he says are trying to prevent Ukip from spreading its message, after he was hit with an egg during a visit to Nottingham today.
Of the protests against him so far during his national tour, Mr Farage said: "They're organised, they're taxpayer funded and they're going around the country chasing me around trying to stop us from getting our message out.
Is cos they are out of work, or is it something very different?
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich. Trickle up is not an economic model that has any merit.
Why do you think people are investing in property? Because savings in cash bring negligible returns. investments in shares are too hairy for many and the City is not trusted by many and pensions have been repeatedly attacked (not least by Labour).
People are trying to find a way to make their money earn something, not least to deal with their own cost of living "crisis" when they retire. Labour give the impression that, far from being on the side of people who are trying to put something by for their old age and their family, they actively despise them and/or see them as purely a wallet to be picked.
The cost of living crisis is worse for pensioners, who have fixed incomes, no easy way of getting work , are not in a position to take risks, face increased bills (not least in relation to care/health) and have been royally shafted by governments of all stripes. If Labour really were concerned for such people and those coming up to retirement or making plans for it, they would not go round attacking pensions and attacking those who have tried to do the right thing.
Labour complain that wealth is concentrated in too few hands and that more should be given the opportunity to acquire wealth but I always feel that the only reason they say that is so that they have more people to fleece when they're in power.
He was PM - he gets the blame. Thacher demonstrated that, with carefully planning and cautious steps, the problem wasn't intractable
It was bloody intractable. Don't underestimate the Thatcher miracle; very, very few people at the time believed it to be possible.
And yes, of course Heath gets some of the blame; he was weak and made misjudgements, but he did try to do something about it, as Wilson had before him. What you have to understand, though, is that they didn't have the public's support for the battle; we hadn't, as a country, finally confronted the reality. The entire public mood, and the establishment view, was that we should fudge and hope for the best, that nothing more could be done.
Maggie was able to rescue the country through a mixture of four things, which came together at the same time: her own strength of purpose and moral clarity, the fact that the public had finally, by 1979, got so sick and tired of the wreckers that they were receptive to taking them on, the luck that the Falklands War boosted her position at just the right time, and the fact that she had some really good support from Tebbutt, Keith Joseph and a handful of others.
It was still a close-run thing: there was nothing inevitable about her success, and I don't think it could have been achieved in the period before her premiership, given that the In Place of Strife opportunity had been thrown away.
A good chunk of what Thatcher did was just a re-hash of Heath's policies in a more fertile environment. And even then her early years were marked more by caution and defeat than success. It was until a few years in that anything really started going her way.
In service to the over-aggrandising of Thatcher, Heath gets a bit of a raw deal.
Yet but Heath introduced some of the same policies, but he abandoned them under pressure.
"Just in Time" is the best Thatcher book I've come across.
Ultimately he called an election (just about the bravest thing a politician can do) and the public wasn't ready for a hardline against the unions (they weren't ready even in 79, see Thatcher's early years and the defeats she suffered there).
I would highly recommend John Campbell's biography of Thatcher (especially the two volume edition). Detailed and insightful.
Mr. N., if you want someone to help in your investigations you only need ask. However, as discussed on here previously, a bottle of fizz from the Nyetimber, Ridgeview, or Bolney estates (all in Sussex) will be superior to anything but the very best from France and far better value.
Yes, true, although some of the prices are getting pretty high. Nyetimber is very good but far from cheap, and our superb local deli is selling an admittedly excellent Champagne-style East Sussex sparkling wine for over £40 a bott....
call of duty meant I couldn't reply to your earlier post.
"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. "
Several points:
1.there's a spin to give Osborne credit for a recovery he has done little to influence. This is the longest recession in recent history we have reached the point where businesses have got off the ground by themselves and the cycle has reversed. That has bugger all to do with MPs grandstanding and trying to take the credit.
2, Your point on 2011 is one I make frequently. GO knew the Eurozone was in the toilet and his response was to sit on his hands and yell export more. The correct responses was to encourage domestic demand and to substiutue for imports. He did neither.
3. Your comments on exports ignore imports and the deteriorating balance of payments. The UK has a serious structural problem on the BoP and dicking about with exchange rates isn't going to change it. Onshoring what we consume will.
4. GO v GB is simple, GO is Brown in second gear. He has the usual desire to dabble in other areas, he loves gimmicks and he eschews the structural reforms the UK needs.
@HurstLlama, @SimonStClare - I share your views on Moet, but I've been told by some of my wine buff friends that it has recently improved considerably. I shall report back when I've had a chance to investigate this claim.
Mr. N., if you want someone to help in your investigations you only need ask. However, as discussed on here previously, a bottle of fizz from the Nyetimber, Ridgeview, or Bolney estates (all in Sussex) will be superior to anything but the very best from France and far better value.
spoken like a true brit Mr L. I'm always suspicious of Mr N and his Louis XIV avatar. ;-)
@MaxPB FPT call of duty meant I couldn't reply to your earlier post.
"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. "
Several points:
1.there's a spin to give Osborne credit for a recovery he has done little to influence. This is the longest recession in recent history we have reached the point where businesses have got off the ground by themselves and the cycle has reversed. That has bugger all to do with MPs grandstanding and trying to take the credit.
2, Your point on 2011 is one I make frequently. GO knew the Eurozone was in the toilet and his response was to sit on his hands and yell export more. The correct responses was to encourage domestic demand and to substiutue for imports. He did neither.
3. Your comments on exports ignore imports and the deteriorating balance of payments. The UK has a serious structural problem on the BoP and dicking about with exchange rates isn't going to change it. Onshoring what we consume will.
4. GO v GB is simple, GO is Brown in second gear. He has the usual desire to dabble in other areas, he loves gimmicks and he eschews the structural reforms the UK needs.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
Anyway, what on earth is this nonsense about 'rewarding having money'? It's called INVESTMENT, it's a good thing, right? Those investors could just buy a property and leave it empty, or use it themselves as a London pied-a-terre, getting all of the capital appreciation (if there is any) without the depreciation, massive hassle, aggravation, and risk associated with tenants. Or they could buy a property abroad. Or they could buy shares. Of course they are rewarded for their investment - how the hell do you think the world works?
And if your claim is 'Ah yes, but the rewards are excessive', then how in the name of Midas would state interference to reduce the attractiveness of the proposition improve things? It would obviously have the opposite effect, causing investors to insist on higher returns to offset the increased risks.
Plus, if it's such a wonderful investment, why are the returns not being driven down by competition?
The figure isn't garbage, it came from Paragon Mortgages and factors in house price rises which are a significant benefit to renting out property since the landlord gets the house price increase instead of the renter. My argument is that when the only thing the investor has done is have the money to invest then this causes the economy to stop rewarding hard work, or risk taking or whatever since those with money don't need to do those things and those without stop becoming wealthy even with those attributes (because they're spending all their money on rent)*. Investment in new buildings to rent out would be good, but investment in just buying homes and then taking them off the market for buyers is not. This also answers your final question, rapidly increasing house prices makes it difficult for new people to enter the rental market. And higher house prices lead to higher rental prices (since more people are trapped in renting and don't have alternatives, they have to accept the market rental rate) which stops returns being driven down.
*This is a simplification, or to more precise clearly only a factor in how the economy works. The rental market obviously doesn't stop all hard work being rewarded, but it does tip the balance a bit more towards the wealthy regardless of hard work or risk taking.
Imagine my surprise when I found out that The Guardian had the 16% returns on buy to let. I only looked it up for amusement, just to see if it matched a satirised stereotypical news source. Then I bought the tin foil hat.
Must have missed out the bit about inflation rates and interest on deposits in the bank.
@MaxPB FPT call of duty meant I couldn't reply to your earlier post.
"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. "
Several points:
1.there's a spin to give Osborne credit for a recovery he has done little to influence. This is the longest recession in recent history we have reached the point where businesses have got off the ground by themselves and the cycle has reversed. That has bugger all to do with MPs grandstanding and trying to take the credit.
2, Your point on 2011 is one I make frequently. GO knew the Eurozone was in the toilet and his response was to sit on his hands and yell export more. The correct responses was to encourage domestic demand and to substiutue for imports. He did neither.
3. Your comments on exports ignore imports and the deteriorating balance of payments. The UK has a serious structural problem on the BoP and dicking about with exchange rates isn't going to change it. Onshoring what we consume will.
4. GO v GB is simple, GO is Brown in second gear. He has the usual desire to dabble in other areas, he loves gimmicks and he eschews the structural reforms the UK needs.
Emily Matliss says average rental return is 16% each year. That's comparable to a good year on the stock markets but with far less chance of negative return. It also doesn't reward hard work or ingenuity. It just rewards having money.
Anyway, what on earth is this nonsense about 'rewarding having money'? It's called INVESTMENT, it's a good thing, right? Those investors could just buy a property and leave it empty, or use it themselves as a London pied-a-terre, getting all of the capital appreciation (if there is any) without the depreciation, massive hassle, aggravation, and risk associated with tenants. Or they could buy a property abroad. Or they could buy shares. Of course they are rewarded for their investment - how the hell do you think the world works?
And if your claim is 'Ah yes, but the rewards are excessive', then how in the name of Midas would state interference to reduce the attractiveness of the proposition improve things? It would obviously have the opposite effect, causing investors to insist on higher returns to offset the increased risks.
Plus, if it's such a wonderful investment, why are the returns not being driven down by competition?
The figure isn't garbage, it came from Paragon Mortgages.
Who are a BTL mortgage specialist.....I wonder if the 16% includes CGT on BTL property sale?
Still unsure on the BNP's position on immigration for penguins.
Interesting to see the Greens targeting the LibDems and UKIP but leaving the Tories and Labour alone.
The Greens are a near-fascist party which uses environmental issues to try to control our lives. If required I would tactically vote Ukip to stop the Greens.
@Quincel - You do know that Paragon's business is buy-to-let-mortgages, I suppose? They are hardly likely to be talking down the expected profits.
Of couse, it is true that the growth in buy-to-let may have bid up house prices, but it bids down rents. If buy-to-let landlords think their main return is from the capital appreciation, they'll still be competing with each other on rents. That is why rents have grown much more slowly than house prices.
Interesting analysis here, although I think he underestimates the importance of low interest rates:
The bottom line is, with a finite number of houses/flats and lots of demand, housing is going to be expensive (especially since, until the recent reforms, the government was bidding up rents via Housing Benefit - that fortunately is now less the case than it was). There's no way round this by capping rents or fiddling around with bashing estate agents; all Ed M would achieve is to make the problem pop up in a different way, and certainly a worse way.
"In service to the over-aggrandising of Thatcher, Heath gets a bit of a raw deal."
No, no, no! Heath does not get a raw deal. He may not have been the worst PM since the war but he was bloody useless, did incalculable harm and was fundamentally dishonest in his dealings with the British people. The idea that he gets a raw deal is revisionist nonsense as anyone who lived through his period in office will tell you.
He really does, especially in people's claims he was timid, and not least through people having to account for him being on a more difficult pitch than Thatcher was. And living through something certainly doesn't guarantee greater understanding.
Mr. C., I agree that living through an era doesn't necessarily give on a better understanding of it, sometimes the reverse. However, scale of the three-day week is not something that comes across well in reading history books. Imagine London with no electricity, no street lights, no work, nothing - you could actually see the stars FFS. OK, we had no computers in those days and the tills in the pubs were not electronic and so we could and did drink our beer by candlelight. Then there was the rampant inflation, the appalling situation in Northern Ireland (130 British Soldiers killed in 1972 alone) and the general mess of the place.
Yet, you say the man responsible for all that gets a raw deal.
Still unsure on the BNP's position on immigration for penguins.
Interesting to see the Greens targeting the LibDems and UKIP but leaving the Tories and Labour alone.
The Greens are a near-fascist party which uses environmental issues to try to control our lives. If required I would tactically vote Ukip to stop the Greens.
Still unsure on the BNP's position on immigration for penguins.
Interesting to see the Greens targeting the LibDems and UKIP but leaving the Tories and Labour alone.
The Greens are a near-fascist party which uses environmental issues to try to control our lives. If required I would tactically vote Ukip to stop the Greens.
That's putting it mildly. I wouldn't be so generous toward the Green Movement.
If Fox is around, the Diplomacy moderator is after him again, and demands a reply today, or nameless dreadful things will happen. He's probably a Green Party member, judging by Mike's comment.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
Hope Not Hate is basically the campaigning arm of Searchlight. The origins of that group are murky to say the least and I wouldn't want to over-egg the pudding on this since I did a fair bit of work with Anti-Fascist (or specifically anti-NF/BNP) groups when I was at University in the 80s. But what is undeniable is that Lowles has worked closely with and for the European Movement and his antipathy towards UKIP should be judged on that basis.
Emily Matliss should try being a private landlord in Wales, as I have for the past 7 years. Capital values have gone backwards, and show no sign of turning the corner. Rental income, gross, is around 5% on current values. After running costs... maintenance, insurance, etc, ... about 2.5% is about what we pick up. If Prime Minister Milliband intends to reduce that further, I for one will be leaving my 4 cottages empty.
Still unsure on the BNP's position on immigration for penguins.
Interesting to see the Greens targeting the LibDems and UKIP but leaving the Tories and Labour alone.
The Greens are a near-fascist party which uses environmental issues to try to control our lives. If required I would tactically vote Ukip to stop the Greens.
That's putting it mildly. I wouldn't be so generous toward the Green Movement.
Ah, so at last people are waking up to the Greens true philosophy, which is to the left of even the communists in some areas. I would call them Crypto fascist commies.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
Still unsure on the BNP's position on immigration for penguins.
Interesting to see the Greens targeting the LibDems and UKIP but leaving the Tories and Labour alone.
In the past, looking at the results from the local council ward I used to live in, there appeared to be an inverse relationship between the LD and Green vote.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
Emily Matliss should try being a private landlord in Wales, as I have for the past 7 years. Capital values have gone backwards, and show no sign of turning the corner. Rental income, gross, is around 5% on current values. After running costs... maintenance, insurance, etc, ... about 2.5% is about what we pick up. If Prime Minister Milliband intends to reduce that further, I for one will be leaving my 4 cottages empty.
My mother inherited a flat in south Wales. The rent she got for it wouldn't of paid for a bedsit room in SE England.
Emily Matliss should try being a private landlord in Wales, as I have for the past 7 years. Capital values have gone backwards, and show no sign of turning the corner. Rental income, gross, is around 5% on current values. After running costs... maintenance, insurance, etc, ... about 2.5% is about what we pick up. If Prime Minister Milliband intends to reduce that further, I for one will be leaving my 4 cottages empty.
With the risk that you get penalised / fined / taxed for that.
Ed M is right to raise housing as an issue. It's his proposed solution which worries me.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 2h My next mega poll will be the Tory/Labour battleground marginals and will be released at @ConHome's spring conference http://is.gd/LCMY0F
If Fox is around, the Diplomacy moderator is after him again, and demands a reply today, or nameless dreadful things will happen. He's probably a Green Party member, judging by Mike's comment.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Productive for who though? The property owner. Which is not really in the interest of the wider economy. The country needs more home owners, not more property owners. Forcing down rental yields in some form would be good for the economy, bad for middle class property owners (my parents included) but definitely good for the wider economy as it would create a new generation of owner occupiers. That the current Tories are protecting buy-to-let owners is spitting on Mrs. T's grave who wanted to create a nation of home owners.
Like I said, Ed's prescription is definitely wrong, but he has identified a serious imbalance in today's economy. The Tories need to have the balls to call a spade a spade and allow young people onto the property ladder by forcing middle class, middle aged coupled off the buy-to-let gravy train.
Emily Matliss should try being a private landlord in Wales, as I have for the past 7 years. Capital values have gone backwards, and show no sign of turning the corner. Rental income, gross, is around 5% on current values. After running costs... maintenance, insurance, etc, ... about 2.5% is about what we pick up. If Prime Minister Milliband intends to reduce that further, I for one will be leaving my 4 cottages empty.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich. Trickle up is not an economic model that has any merit.
Why do you think people are investing in property? Because savings in cash bring negligible returns. investments in shares are too hairy for many and the City is not trusted by many and pensions have been repeatedly attacked (not least by Labour).
People are trying to find a way to make their money earn something, not least to deal with their own cost of living "crisis" when they retire. Labour give the impression that, far from being on the side of people who are trying to put something by for their old age and their family, they actively despise them and/or see them as purely a wallet to be picked.
The cost of living crisis is worse for pensioners, who have fixed incomes, no easy way of getting work , are not in a position to take risks, face increased bills (not least in relation to care/health) and have been royally shafted by governments of all stripes. If Labour really were concerned for such people and those coming up to retirement or making plans for it, they would not go round attacking pensions and attacking those who have tried to do the right thing.
Labour complain that wealth is concentrated in too few hands and that more should be given the opportunity to acquire wealth but I always feel that the only reason they say that is so that they have more people to fleece when they're in power.
You make a series of good points. Having a BTL as part of your old age planning does not make one a rapacious evil so and so (neither I nor my wife have one for clarity ) and folk are seeking stable indexed linked (ish) returns to see them through their old age, especially since G Brown left the private sector final salary system resembling a financial Stalingrad after he'd finished with it, and interest rates are lower than anytime since 1694.
There is a problem with lack of stability for families but Ed's reflexive instinct when faced with an issue like this seems to go for a supply limiting regulation of the symptoms and blame " vested interests " - see energy a few months ago, now rented housing. What's next?
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Buying property and renting it out is not 'sitting on it', it is making productive use of the capital to provide housing (currently at very low rental returns) to people who want it. It's also far from being a pain-free or risk-free process, as anyone who knows anything about renting property out will tell you.
Productive for who though? The property owner. Which is not really in the interest of the wider economy. The country needs more home owners, not more property owners. Forcing down rental yields in some form would be good for the economy, bad for middle class property owners (my parents included) but definitely good for the wider economy as it would create a new generation of owner occupiers. That the current Tories are protecting buy-to-let owners is spitting on Mrs. T's grave who wanted to create a nation of home owners.
Like I said, Ed's prescription is definitely wrong, but he has identified a serious imbalance in today's economy. The Tories need to have the balls to call a spade a spade and allow young people onto the property ladder by forcing middle class, middle aged coupled off the buy-to-let gravy train.
Does the country as a whole really need more home owners? Arguably it's the obsession with home ownership which has so distorted the housing market and our wider economy.
Comments
http://labourlist.org/2014/05/welcome-to-radical-labour/
....the Spectator misreads Ed’s agenda as that of Michael Foot, 1983 and not it’s true inspiration: Margaret Thatcher, 1979. Thatcher was dangerous to her opponents and the economic model she overturned.
Lab 42 Con 26 LD 14 UKIP 11 Green 4
"Members of Parliament are meant to be in the House of Commons to work. Yet tests on the outward drainage system have shown that some of them have drugs in their system and they enjoy a range of bars and common-rooms that provide cheap wine, beer, and spirits. Why?"
Complete nonsense - £32.50p for a second rate Moet is not 'cheap'.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100269802/rent-controls-ed-miliband-feels-your-pain-he-just-doesnt-know-what-to-do-about-it/
Ah well have £59.09 on at 11-10 so I'll be content with that.
In service to the over-aggrandising of Thatcher, Heath gets a bit of a raw deal.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-05-01/farage-hits-out-at-taxpayer-funded-protesters/
Nigel Farage has hit out at "taxpayer-funded" protesters who he says are trying to prevent Ukip from spreading its message, after he was hit with an egg during a visit to Nottingham today.
Of the protests against him so far during his national tour, Mr Farage said: "They're organised, they're taxpayer funded and they're going around the country chasing me around trying to stop us from getting our message out.
Is cos they are out of work, or is it something very different?
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-farage-my-response-to-barbara-roche-9301378.html
"Just in Time" is the best Thatcher book I've come across.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Time-Inside-Thatcher-Revolution/dp/1854107089
seems generous - assume factors in taking share of debt.
It is outrageous really, MPs are paid £60k plus a year, plus enormous expenses on a scale the HMRC would never allow ordinary folk and then get subsidised food and booze on top of that.
A decent swing to Labour
That was the lowest Con share since 1994
No, no, no! Heath does not get a raw deal. He may not have been the worst PM since the war but he was bloody useless, did incalculable harm and was fundamentally dishonest in his dealings with the British people. The idea that he gets a raw deal is revisionist nonsense as anyone who lived through his period in office will tell you.
given Moody's expectation that the UK authorities would likely persist in their refusal to tolerate a currency union with an independent Scotland
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/janice-atkinson/ukip-unions_b_3414795.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27224726
16% - where does she get that figure from?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27236458
Police are investigating whether documents presented in that case were falsified. A doctor whose signature appears on some of the letters says he only wrote two of them.
I wonder what her source is?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/26/returns-for-buy-to-let-landlords-dwarf-other-investments
Not sure that it makes sense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/10766989/Buy-to-let-rental-returns-fall-in-nine-regions-out-of-ten.html
Anyway, what on earth is this nonsense about 'rewarding having money'? It's called INVESTMENT, it's a good thing, right? Those investors could just buy a property and leave it empty, or use it themselves as a London pied-a-terre, getting all of the capital appreciation (if there is any) without the depreciation, massive hassle, aggravation, and risk associated with tenants. Or they could buy a property abroad. Or they could buy shares. Of course they are rewarded for their investment - how the hell do you think the world works?
And if your claim is 'Ah yes, but the rewards are excessive', then how in the name of Midas would state interference to reduce the attractiveness of the proposition improve things? It would obviously have the opposite effect, causing investors to insist on higher returns to offset the increased risks.
Plus, if it's such a wonderful investment, why are the returns not being driven down by competition?
People are trying to find a way to make their money earn something, not least to deal with their own cost of living "crisis" when they retire. Labour give the impression that, far from being on the side of people who are trying to put something by for their old age and their family, they actively despise them and/or see them as purely a wallet to be picked.
The cost of living crisis is worse for pensioners, who have fixed incomes, no easy way of getting work , are not in a position to take risks, face increased bills (not least in relation to care/health) and have been royally shafted by governments of all stripes. If Labour really were concerned for such people and those coming up to retirement or making plans for it, they would not go round attacking pensions and attacking those who have tried to do the right thing.
Labour complain that wealth is concentrated in too few hands and that more should be given the opportunity to acquire wealth but I always feel that the only reason they say that is so that they have more people to fleece when they're in power.
Still unsure on the BNP's position on immigration for penguins.
I would highly recommend John Campbell's biography of Thatcher (especially the two volume edition). Detailed and insightful.
@MaxPB FPT
call of duty meant I couldn't reply to your earlier post.
"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. "
Several points:
1.there's a spin to give Osborne credit for a recovery he has done little to influence. This is the longest recession in recent history we have reached the point where businesses have got off the ground by themselves and the cycle has reversed. That has bugger all to do with MPs grandstanding and trying to take the credit.
2, Your point on 2011 is one I make frequently. GO knew the Eurozone was in the toilet and his response was to sit on his hands and yell export more. The correct responses was to encourage domestic demand and to substiutue for imports. He did neither.
3. Your comments on exports ignore imports and the deteriorating balance of payments. The UK has a serious structural problem on the BoP and dicking about with exchange rates isn't going to change it. Onshoring what we consume will.
4. GO v GB is simple, GO is Brown in second gear. He has the usual desire to dabble in other areas, he loves gimmicks and he eschews the structural reforms the UK needs.
Since the ONS says rents have been rising more slowly than inflation, I wonder how robust the rest of Paragon's analysis is......
In any case the BBC should multi-source such a claim and not rely solely on a BTL Mortgage provider, who may not be a disinterested source...
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27235606
*This is a simplification, or to more precise clearly only a factor in how the economy works. The rental market obviously doesn't stop all hard work being rewarded, but it does tip the balance a bit more towards the wealthy regardless of hard work or risk taking.
Must have missed out the bit about inflation rates and interest on deposits in the bank.
Have interest rates returned to real levels as they would in a confident market ?
How's that AAA coming along ?
Of couse, it is true that the growth in buy-to-let may have bid up house prices, but it bids down rents. If buy-to-let landlords think their main return is from the capital appreciation, they'll still be competing with each other on rents. That is why rents have grown much more slowly than house prices.
Interesting analysis here, although I think he underestimates the importance of low interest rates:
http://timharford.com/2014/02/dont-bet-the-house-on-price-rises-persisting/
The bottom line is, with a finite number of houses/flats and lots of demand, housing is going to be expensive (especially since, until the recent reforms, the government was bidding up rents via Housing Benefit - that fortunately is now less the case than it was). There's no way round this by capping rents or fiddling around with bashing estate agents; all Ed M would achieve is to make the problem pop up in a different way, and certainly a worse way.
Yet, you say the man responsible for all that gets a raw deal.
I imagine Len McCluskey does just that every week...
The PlayDiplomacy Admins want a word with you on your email
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pepys
Golly, who would have thought Mr. Brooke was a computer gaming enthusiast. Which version were you playing, Mr. B?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_not_Hate
Capital values have gone backwards, and show no sign of turning the corner.
Rental income, gross, is around 5% on current values.
After running costs... maintenance, insurance, etc, ... about 2.5% is about what we pick up.
If Prime Minister Milliband intends to reduce that further, I for one will be leaving my 4 cottages empty.
I hadn't realised the IRA had attacked one of the McConville children. Pure evil.
http://standuptoukip.org/
Here is the leaflet
http://www.columnist.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Screenshot-2014-01-22-23.10.20.png
http://www.columnist.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Screenshot-2014-01-22-23.10.46.png
Perhaps UKIP have the anti-establishment voters?
Ed M is right to raise housing as an issue. It's his proposed solution which worries me.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 2h
My next mega poll will be the Tory/Labour battleground marginals and will be released at @ConHome's spring conference http://is.gd/LCMY0F
Lord Glasman offers his advice on rent caps:
“We’ve really got to get out of this idea that capping something is going to solve a long-term structural problem.”
My son runs a Diplomacy account now, so hence the confusion. I have replied to the Mods. We are in different games so no cheating.
Heaven forbid that he takes an interest in PB too!
Like I said, Ed's prescription is definitely wrong, but he has identified a serious imbalance in today's economy. The Tories need to have the balls to call a spade a spade and allow young people onto the property ladder by forcing middle class, middle aged coupled off the buy-to-let gravy train.
The game PB 2014 Mk3 is still up awaiting players (password catsandkittens)
Just in case those who are about to get stomped want another go.
There is a problem with lack of stability for families but Ed's reflexive instinct when faced with an issue like this seems to go for a supply limiting regulation of the symptoms and blame " vested interests " - see energy a few months ago, now rented housing. What's next?