"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Butting in, whatever their personal preference might be i think their maximum level of support would come from being (or being perceived to be) an anti-globalist and anti-PC version of the conservative party taking around 2/3 off the Tory vote and a 1/3 each off Lab/Lib.
I'd agree with that.
UKIP's movement from libertarianism towards populism is not to my personal taste.
Their average lead in the locals since 2010 is just 3%... (Rallings & Thrasher National Equivalent Voteshares)
OK Rsquare= 0.95. So, what are you trying to say ?
Just that up to now, most of the variance in an Opposition's GE performance can be explained by its average LE performance. There seems a very strong correlation, which is hardly surprising.
Of the 3 changes in government since 1979, each successful party (1979, 1997, 2010) has been at least 13 points clear in the R&T average NEV scores.
Labour after three sets of LEs are on average just 3 points ahead of the Tories.
Strengthens my conviction the Tories will win the popular vote in 2015, and there will be another hung parliament...
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Butting in, whatever their personal preference might be i think their maximum level of support would come from being (or being perceived to be) an anti-globalist and anti-PC version of the conservative party taking around 2/3 off the Tory vote and a 1/3 each off Lab/Lib.
I'd agree with that.
UKIP's movement from libertarianism towards populism is not to my personal taste.
Prof Sked said it was not uncommon for the commodities broker to turn up at the party’s national executive evening meetings in a “relaxed” mood after a long day working — and drinking — in the Square Mile.
The academic also said that he received letters complaining about the spelling and grammar used in Mr Farage’s election literature.
“There seemed to be a bit of problem distinguishing its from it’s,” Prof Sked recalled, adding that Mr Farage did admit that writing was not his area of expertise.
“It was not always easy to portray us as a party that took education very seriously in such circumstances.” Mr Farage attended Dulwich College, the leading public school, in south London.
I feel most sorry for Richard Tyndall.
Prof. Sked: “My great regret is that the party I founded has been captured by the radical Right and has gone all anti-intellectual. It’s gone completely fruitcake.” And his view that the party has become “anti-immigrant, anti-intellectual and racist”.
There is enough intellectual angst in there for a new Hamlet to be penned with RT as the protagonist.
Why would you feel sorry for me? I have often stated I am no great fan of Farage as leader.
That said Sked's attacks have been continuous for the last decade or more. He has taken his lead from Ted Heath and has been involved one of the longest sulks in political history. He left UKIP in a huff because he disagreed with them standing for the European Parliament. He thought they should only stand at Westminster. A proposal which everyone knew was the one sure way to make sure they never gained any influence at all.
Sked has never reconciled himself with the fact that the party he helped to found has moved on without him and been far more successful than it ever would have been had he still been leader.
And of course UKIP has the pefect answer to the accusations of racism in that it is the only party that prohibits former members of the BNP joining them and kicks them out if they are uncovered. The day the Tories have a similar policy they will be in a a position to criticise but not before.
... Trouble is guys like Avery are getting a little bit worried by the sudden burst of speed that UKIP has put on in the last few months. They do see it as a threat to their beloved Tories: a party in decay, if there ever was one. ...
I am not worried by the sudden rise of UKIP, 'Mr. Mike'.
I see it as an inevitable consequence of the current state of the UK and EU economies and as a natural reaction by the electorate to the pain of undergoing treatment by relative austerity.
And sudden rapid rates of growth are often followed by equally sudden falls. unreservedly.
Your usual screeds of waffle are, as ever, undermined by the most basic neglect of the facts.
UKIP have surged noticeably in recent weeks, of course, but on examination their rise has been going on for many months, even years:
All this tells me that there is a solidity to the rise of UKIP, and that, unless they completely f*ck up (always possible with a relatively impoverished "fringe" party) they have developed a core vote of 8-12% (maybe even higher), which will not drain away easily. That is to say: 8-12% is the support they have, if you strip away the recent froth, and rely on the longer trend.
Anyone hoping that UKIP will sink back to 2% is probably deluded.
I have spent the day at Headingly - the first for more than 50 years! Oh for the days of Hutton and Lowson opening the batting for Yorkshire or Trueman and Appleyard opening the bowling. But what surprised me the most were the number of women spectators and the amount of alcohol consumed. Is there any other sport where such things happen?
I've been at Headingley the last two days.
Rugby union matches, at least on the international matches I've been to have women and booze.
But cricket fans have the best fancy dress.
Ever seen Yorkshire at Scarbrough ?
Lower division RU is good for wandering around the ground with a pint in your hand.
Cul-de-sacs are popular with most people according to this article. Might explain why planners hate them so much and have tried to stop any new ones being built over the last 20 years or so:
I have spent the day at Headingly - the first for more than 50 years! Oh for the days of Hutton and Lowson opening the batting for Yorkshire or Trueman and Appleyard opening the bowling. But what surprised me the most were the number of women spectators and the amount of alcohol consumed. Is there any other sport where such things happen?
I've been at Headingley the last two days.
Rugby union matches, at least on the international matches I've been to have women and booze.
But cricket fans have the best fancy dress.
Ever seen Yorkshire at Scarbrough ?
Lower division RU is good for wandering around the ground with a pint in your hand.
I have, a few years ago.
I was amazed to learn that England played ODIs at Scarborough in the 70s.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.
Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.
The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.
Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.
Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.
Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.
Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.
Cul-de-sacs are popular with most people according to this article. Might explain why planners hate them so much and have tried to stop any new ones being built over the last 20 years or so:
Another Richard - The problem with a genuinely libertarian party ie pro gay marriage and immigration, as well as low taxes and slashed state spending is that it has a constituency of about 10% at the most, most of whom live in the wealthier parts of London. Perhaps the closest thing we have had to such a party is Clegg's LDs (excluding the issue of the EU), and look what it has done to their poll rating. UKIP knows it has to take a sceptical line on things like immigration to win over the punters who are also likely to be hostile to the EU and want lower taxes and have no desperate desire to see gay marriage, ie the populist right!
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.
Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.
The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.
Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.
Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.
Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.
Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.
tim and ar to read carefully, repeat, and note.
I'm well aware of what the present situation is.
That's why Osborne is throwing in his schemes to try to increase borrowing and house prices.
I also recall that Osborne, in his first budget, was expecting a £500bn increase in household borrowing by 2020.
Giving us a thousand unnecessary words doesn't change these facts.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Well said.
Double well said, though I should add that I firmly believe in grammar schools as well.
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
There is a property bubble developing, but at the moment it is pretty much restricted to London, and, within London, a few particular favoured boroughs. Such as Camden.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Many thanks.
My own suspicion is that there is not much support for a libertarian party in the UK.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
My own suspicion is that there is not much support for a libertarian party in the UK.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Many thanks.
My own suspicion is that there is not much support for a libertarian party in the UK.
I remember when i was growing up people used to say "it's a free country" all the time when arguing about this or that. I haven't heard that in years - not in London anyway.
edit: So i think it would have to be a national libertarian party.
I have a thread coming up in the next few days asking if Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will be the only constant in government this decade
Have you seen the Lib Dem polling?
I have but as Lord Ashcroft says
The Lib Dems will almost certainly do better on the day than their poll numbers currently suggest, since local factors and popular MPs are a more important part of their appeal.
I have a thread coming up in the next few days asking if Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will be the only constant in government this decade
Have you seen the Lib Dem polling?
I have but as Lord Ashcroft says
The Lib Dems will almost certainly do better on the day than their poll numbers currently suggest, since local factors and popular MPs are a more important part of their appeal.
Hmmm. A correction...
"... local factors and popular MPs areused to be a more important part of their appeal"
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
There is a property bubble developing, but at the moment it is pretty much restricted to London, and, within London, a few particular favoured boroughs. Such as Camden.
It's only good news if you plan to sell up and move to a less fashionable - and cheaper - part of town. If you plan to stay in Camden then it doesn't help you at all & may even be negative (e.g. if you want to upsize)
Another Richard - The problem with a genuinely libertarian party ie pro gay marriage and immigration, as well as low taxes and slashed state spending is that it has a constituency of about 10% at the most, most of whom live in the wealthier parts of London. Perhaps the closest thing we have had to such a party is Clegg's LDs (excluding the issue of the EU), and look what it has done to their poll rating. UKIP knows it has to take a sceptical line on things like immigration to win over the punters who are also likely to be hostile to the EU and want lower taxes and have no desperate desire to see gay marriage, ie the populist right!
Clegg's party is in no way Libertarian. It does not believe in a small state and supports all of the major areas of state spending including a substantial and over intrusive welfare state.
Nor does a Libertarian party have to be in favour of unfettered immigration. There is a very strong branch of Libertarian thought that sees mass migration as fundamentally anti-Libertarian as it infringes the property rights of those already settled in a country. I am not saying I agree whole heartedly with that position but there are very strong strands of Libertarianism which are based upon the propertarian principle.
I have a thread coming up in the next few days asking if Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will be the only constant in government this decade
Great. I think it is a very serious question.
The electoral system has changed, and it tends to stick in a position for a number of decades....
Are we now entering The Era of Coalitions?
If you'd like to write a thread on this topic, I'd be very happy to run it.
I'm not sure a coalition system with only 3 credible parties is feasible over successive general elections.
It used to work in Germany because the FDP had a distinct niche that wasn't really left or right. I don't think the LibDems can pull that off.
If UKIP manage to get organised and make it a 4 party system it will be possible, although I suspect you would end up with a Tory/UKIP relationship like the CDU/CSU.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Well said.
Double well said, though I should add that I firmly believe in grammar schools as well.
I wasn't going to go into too much detail on specific policies as that wasn't really what Sean was asking but yes I too agree with Grammar schools. And in spite of Avery's criticisms, hearing what others have said about the very extensive scholarship schemes at Dulwich it is very clear to see why Farage so favours Grammars as well.
I have a thread coming up in the next few days asking if Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will be the only constant in government this decade
Great. I think it is a very serious question.
The electoral system has changed, and it tends to stick in a position for a number of decades....
Are we now entering The Era of Coalitions?
If you'd like to write a thread on this topic, I'd be very happy to run it.
I'm not sure a coalition system with only 3 credible parties is feasible over successive general elections.
It used to work in Germany because the FDP had a distinct niche that wasn't really left or right. I don't think the LibDems can pull that off.
If UKIP manage to get organised and make it a 4 party system it will be possible, although I suspect you would end up with a Tory/UKIP relationship like the CDU/CSU.
The thing that the avery lp's and the richard Nabavi's of these boards should bear in mind is that there are many such as myself that voted conservative in 2010 and are appalled by the Cameron led lurch to nanny state nudge techniques and his embrace for social democracy.
Many like myself also aren't particularly enthused by large numbers of UKIP policies and probably won't vote for UKIP in 2015. However the sneering condescension shown to UKIP members by your ilk makes it even less likely that I will vote tory again in the near future. If you show your contempt for people like this you become as reprehensible as the lefties that look down on those with the "wrong" attitudes as well.
Perhaps when the modern metrosexual tories lurched to the left to become new new labour you picked up their bad habits
I suspect you would end up with a Tory/UKIP relationship like the CDU/CSU.
I doubt that very much. The CDU/CSU split only works because of geographic separation. There would be a very strong argument for treating the Scottish Conservatives as a separate party in this way but it wouldn't work with a national party that is perceived to damage the electoral chances of the Tories.
Mr. Eagles, I don't know. It could've happened with Alonso-Hamilton or Prost-Senna, but I suspect not.
On rainbows, I'm thinking of having a Rainbow Knight as a politically correct alternative to a Black/Dark Knight. Pondering whether it fits with the general approach to the world (a Dark Knight could work just as well, but in a different way).
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Well said.
Double well said, though I should add that I firmly believe in grammar schools as well.
I wasn't going to go into too much detail on specific policies as that wasn't really what Sean was asking but yes I too agree with Grammar schools. And in spite of Avery's criticisms, hearing what others have said about the very extensive scholarship schemes at Dulwich it is very clear to see why Farage so favours Grammars as well.
I live in Buckinghamshire where we still have grammar schools, the best chance for a working class kid to get on. I still struggle to understand why all these self serving politicians who bang on about social mobility oppose grammar schools so vehemently.
I have to say though that Gove seems to be doing a good job, at least if he's upsetting the teaching unions then he must be!
I suspect you would end up with a Tory/UKIP relationship like the CDU/CSU.
I doubt that very much. The CDU/CSU split only works because of geographic separation. There would be a very strong argument for treating the Scottish Conservatives as a separate party in this way but it wouldn't work with a national party that is perceived to damage the electoral chances of the Tories.
That's true - and it was a shorthand way of saying that I think a national UKIP/Labour coalition is unlikely. This means that UKIP/Tories is the only likely combination - for me, UKIP targetting the WWC (especially in Northern England) is their best strategy of carving out a distinct niche.
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.
Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.
The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.
Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.
Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.
Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.
Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.
tim and ar to read carefully, repeat, and note.
I'm well aware of what the present situation is.
That's why Osborne is throwing in his schemes to try to increase borrowing and house prices.
I also recall that Osborne, in his first budget, was expecting a £500bn increase in household borrowing by 2020.
Giving us a thousand unnecessary words doesn't change these facts.
Less than four hundred more words to help explain why Osborne's intervention in the housing finance market is required. Mostly sourced from HM Treasury documents.
The availability of high loan-to-value (LTV) lending has seen a sharp reduction in the wake of the financial crisis. In 2008, the number of mortgage products with a maximum of 95% LTV was over 700 and for 90% LTV just under a 1,000. By 2012 the numbers had fallen to 350 (90% LTV) and less than a 100 (95% LTV).
The consequences of this contraction for first-time buyers has been average deposits have risen from around 35 per cent of average incomes in 2006 to just under 80 per cent in 2012.
In other words, first time buyers have been all but shut out of the market. In 2012 there were 40 per cent fewer first-time buyers than in 2007. Since 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has estimated that the median age of an ‘unassisted’ [by family] first-time buyer has risen from 30 to 33.
Existing mortgagees with low equity in their properties have also been affected by the lack of availability of high LTV mortgages, meaning that far fewer are moving thereby depleting the available stock of properties suitable for first time buyers.
The overall impact on the market has been that residential property transactions fell by around 50 per cent after 2007 and have changed little since. Current turnover rates are equivalent to houses selling, on average, once every 25 years, compared to once every 15 years before the crisis.
It is clear that the housing market has not been functioning well. The 2012 government introduction of the Funding for Lending scheme (FLS) has reduced bank funding costs enabling interest rate reductions to be passed on the mortgagees and greater availability of mortgage products.
Further intervention, the Help to Buy equity loan and guarantee schemes, have been targetted at removing the high LTV barrier to first time buyers and to stimulate the supply of new-build properties.
In the circumstances of the mortgage credit squeeze evidenced in my previous post none of the measures introduced by Osborne could reasonably be characterised as designed to inflate house prices or create a housing bubble. They are simply stabilisation measures targetted at the most disadvantaged purchaser groups: first time buyers.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Well said.
Double well said, though I should add that I firmly believe in grammar schools as well.
I wasn't going to go into too much detail on specific policies as that wasn't really what Sean was asking but yes I too agree with Grammar schools. And in spite of Avery's criticisms, hearing what others have said about the very extensive scholarship schemes at Dulwich it is very clear to see why Farage so favours Grammars as well.
I live in Buckinghamshire where we still have grammar schools, the best chance for a working class kid to get on. I still struggle to understand why all these self serving politicians who bang on about social mobility oppose grammar schools so vehemently.
I have to say though that Gove seems to be doing a good job, at least if he's upsetting the teaching unions then he must be!
Lincolnshire where I live also still has Grammars and my daughter is at Maggie's old school in Grantham. To my mind a far better system of education than I had in neighbouring Nottinghamshire
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
There is a property bubble developing, but at the moment it is pretty much restricted to London, and, within London, a few particular favoured boroughs. Such as Camden.
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
There is a property bubble developing, but at the moment it is pretty much restricted to London, and, within London, a few particular favoured boroughs. Such as Camden.
It's only good news if you plan to sell up and move to a less fashionable - and cheaper - part of town. If you plan to stay in Camden then it doesn't help you at all & may even be negative (e.g. if you want to upsize)
It's also in your favour if you plan to emigrate before the bubble pops.
That is has done so for so long a period of time and during variable economic conditions suggests it has become a permanent feature unless there are fundamental changes to our economy.
But its still over 15 years since Britain has a month of trade surplus.
By far the longest period on the ONS date.
If anyone has long term historical data I would be interested to know if and when that was ever exceeded.
Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?
Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Many thanks.
My own suspicion is that there is not much support for a libertarian party in the UK.
Well Richard T. I can understand your cynicism with politicians and mainstream politics in this country and you must have suffered disappointments many times, as we all have, when the men, (Blair/Brown) or woman, Thatcher) on white horses fail to bring cherished ideas and promises to fruition. So. The Lab/Lib/Con party over the last 70 years has taken this country to the edge of the knackers yard; who are you going to vote for if it isn't UKIP?
I myself have lived long enough to take electoral promises with the proverbial pinch of salt and dont trust any established politician. So it is with relief that I can turn to UKIP to see if there is something new in air. Something new in British politics. Farage, however you may dislike him personally, (and I presume it is a personality clash between you and him), Has been a boon to UKIP. However even he says that UKIP can no longer be a one man band and is now recruiting men and women of some stature and spirit to work as the executive of the party. (Conference will later vote yay or nay on these picks). For the first time in nearly 100 years the face british politics may be changing, and when there is change and anger about; there is also hope.
I cannot write as well as some on PB, so I hope you'll forgive the grammatical errors I have made.
I really struggle to see why even his enemies care about Cameron going to Ibiza. Either it's fine for PMs to go on holiday, or it's not, and if it is, it's not like he's really going on holiday, he'll be kept informed and called back as needed, so it's not even funny to pretend it's a big deal.
ETA: Laughably staged photoshoots and things, by way of contrast, are inherently amusing and since it's about public image, even slightly relevant.
"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.
Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.
The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.
Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.
Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.
Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.
Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.
tim and ar to read carefully, repeat, and note.
I'm well aware of what the present situation is.
That's why Osborne is throwing in his schemes to try to increase borrowing and house prices.
I also recall that Osborne, in his first budget, was expecting a £500bn increase in household borrowing by 2020.
Giving us a thousand unnecessary words doesn't change these facts.
Less than four hundred more words to help explain why Osborne's intervention in the housing finance market is required. Mostly sourced from HM Treasury documents.
The availability of high loan-to-value (LTV) lending has seen a sharp reduction in the wake of the financial crisis. In 2008, the number of mortgage products with a maximum of 95% LTV was over 700 and for 90% LTV just under a 1,000. By 2012 the numbers had fallen to 350 (90% LTV) and less than a 100 (95% LTV).
The consequences of this contraction for first-time buyers has been average deposits have risen from around 35 per cent of average incomes in 2006 to just under 80 per cent in 2012.
In other words, first time buyers have been all but shut out of the market. In 2012 there were 40 per cent fewer first-time buyers than in 2007. Since 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has estimated that the median age of an ‘unassisted’ [by family] first-time buyer has risen from 30 to 33.
Existing mortgagees with low equity in their properties have also been affected by the lack of availability of high LTV mortgages, meaning that far fewer are moving thereby depleting the available stock of properties suitable for first time buyers.
The overall impact on the market has been that residential property transactions fell by around 50 per cent after 2007 and have changed little since. Current turnover rates are equivalent to houses selling, on average, once every 25 years, compared to once every 15 years before the crisis.
It is clear that the housing market has not been functioning well. The 2012 government introduction of the Funding for Lending scheme (FLS) has reduced bank funding costs enabling interest rate reductions to be passed on the mortgagees and greater availability of mortgage products.
Further intervention, the Help to Buy equity loan and guarantee schemes, have been targetted at removing the high LTV barrier to first time buyers and to stimulate the supply of new-build properties.
In the circumstances of the mortgage credit squeeze evidenced in my previous post none of the measures introduced by Osborne could reasonably be characterised as designed to inflate house prices or create a housing bubble. They are simply stabilisation measures targetted at the most disadvantaged purchaser groups: first time buyers.
The problems are caused by house prices being too high.
Osborne's schemes will lead to a continuation of that.
All you're supporting is short term boosts to deal with a long term problem.
Until people accept that a house is for living in and is not a cash machine that problem will continue. And this is a problem which has been encouraged by governments eager for a happy electorate drugged up on consumerism. Osborne's pissed off because that's not the case at the moment, hence his schemes.
And I'll also point out that there's nothing wrong with people having to put down a 10% deposit.
That's what they did during the 20th century, a century which, unlike this one, saw continual increases in home ownership.
I really struggle to see why even his enemies care about Cameron going to Ibiza. Either it's fine for PMs to go on holiday, or it's not, and if it is, it's not like he's really going on holiday, he'll be kept informed and called back as needed, so it's not even funny to pretend it's a big deal.
All three right wing papers that ran the swivel eyed loon story are going after the chillaxing fop.
Right. So what? An awkwardly staged photo opp is at least partially relevant because it relates to someone trying to boost their public image, but going on holiday isn't, so I'm baffled anyone finds it that nourishing as comedic fodder, be they enemies from the left or right.
I really struggle to see why even his enemies care about Cameron going to Ibiza. Either it's fine for PMs to go on holiday, or it's not, and if it is, it's not like he's really going on holiday, he'll be kept informed and called back as needed, so it's not even funny to pretend it's a big deal.
All three right wing papers that ran the swivel eyed loon story are going after the chillaxing fop.
Right. So what? An awkwardly staged photo opp is at least partially relevant because it relates to someone trying to boost their public image, but going on holiday isn't, so I'm baffled anyone finds it that nourishing as comedic fodder, be they enemies from the left or right.
I agree that Cammo should be allowed go on holiday the same as any other citizen. I also agree that the longer he stays away from Britain, the better.
I see Theresa May is joining the idiots in looking to resurrect the snoopers charter off the back of the unfolding security services somewhat less than complete ignorance of the Woolwich suspects. Not very clever.
Hammond's appeal to permanently unhappy tory backbenchers as a boring safe pair of hands may be increasing.
I really struggle to see why even his enemies care about Cameron going to Ibiza. Either it's fine for PMs to go on holiday, or it's not, and if it is, it's not like he's really going on holiday, he'll be kept informed and called back as needed, so it's not even funny to pretend it's a big deal.
All three right wing papers that ran the swivel eyed loon story are going after the chillaxing fop.
Right. So what? An awkwardly staged photo opp is at least partially relevant because it relates to someone trying to boost their public image, but going on holiday isn't, so I'm baffled anyone finds it that nourishing as comedic fodder, be they enemies from the left or right.
I agree that Cammo should be allowed go on holiday the same as any other citizen. I also agree that the longer he stays away from Britain, the better.
I think you'll find in these days of high speed internet access and satellite communication, he can still run or at least significantly influence the running of the country from a beach in Ibiza, so no luck for you there I think.
In fact, it could be a good move for him, the equivalent of people who transition to home working and don't put their office number through so they can get some work done uninterrupted. Cameron might be more effective sunning on the beach and not having to bump into self-harming rebels, the british press and the unwashed masses (excepting those also on the beach) all the goddamn time.
Someone called Nigel de Gruchy used to be head of one of the main teaching unions. I remember having several days off school in the 1990s thanks to him.
Someone called Nigel de Gruchy used to be head of one of the main teaching unions. I remember having several days off school in the 1990s thanks to him.
Damage is done, nothing to be gained from dropping it, and even if supporters of it will not switch en masse to the Tories because of it (not that there are not many Tories who already support it), there's no further harm created in sticking to the current path even were it not, for many of its proponents, a moral issue.
I have been intrigued why Camden seems to be having a particular boom. I guess it's because yuppies can no longer afford to live in K&C, Westminster or Islington. Yet most of Camden, trendy as it is, is still pretty dirty looking.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the market when a lot of the housing benefit people have to move out. Without the government assisted demand, will prices slow down, or will places benefit from low income people moving out and the remaining population being wealthier on average? Economics would say the former, but there are quite a few high streets in the capital that could become a lot nicer should Southern Fried Chicken close down due to lack of clientele and a frozen yoghurt shop move in.
Richard Tyndall - Well Clegg's LDs have been part of a government that has cut the top rate of tax for the rich, produced the biggest spending cuts since the war and supported gay marriage (despite opposition from Tory backbenchers). Even if you want to argue being pro immigration is not libertarian (in which case you would be arguing the BNP is libertarian on immigration a view in which I believe you would have few takers) the LDs in their present guise, ie socially and economically liberal are the closest thing we have had to a libertarian party. That does not mean they are libertarian though.
He certainly has stampted his own personailty on the papacy pretty quickly. I read he even said atheists can do some good as well believers, which is nice of him.
Comments
Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.
Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.
I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.
UKIP's movement from libertarianism towards populism is not to my personal taste.
But I think they're right to do it.
Of the 3 changes in government since 1979, each successful party (1979, 1997, 2010) has been at least 13 points clear in the R&T average NEV scores.
Labour after three sets of LEs are on average just 3 points ahead of the Tories.
Strengthens my conviction the Tories will win the popular vote in 2015, and there will be another hung parliament...
2011 Con +1%
2012 Lab +6%
2013 Lab +3%
Clearly EdM isn't sealing the deal but then Cameron didn't either despite big local election wins.
Cameron was lucky in that Brown did seal the deal ie the country didn't want him.
Will EdM be as lucky ?
2015 is going to be 1974 all over again. Whether 1974F or 1974O or 1974F and 1974O remains to be seen.
Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.
However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.
I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.
Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.
Now that your prediction of a monthly trade surplus is agreed all we have to argue about is the timing of my pronouncement.
You are a man of letters.
Please leave the graphs to the statisticians.
Lower division RU is good for wandering around the ground with a pint in your hand.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10064253/A-quiet-little-cul-de-sac-is-right-up-our-street.html
I was amazed to learn that England played ODIs at Scarborough in the 70s.
They should bring them back.
Anyhow, Britain better get used to hung parliaments/wrong-winner elections...
The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.
The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.
Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.
The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.
Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.
Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.
Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.
Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.
tim and ar to read carefully, repeat, and note.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22673156
Tory-Labour pact could save data bill, says Lord Howard
Authoritarians of the World Unite!
That's why Osborne is throwing in his schemes to try to increase borrowing and house prices.
I also recall that Osborne, in his first budget, was expecting a £500bn increase in household borrowing by 2020.
Giving us a thousand unnecessary words doesn't change these facts.
2010-15 Con/LD coalition
2015-20 Lab/LD coalition
2020-25 Con/LD coalition
Might make an interesting thread topic?
Actually, the Balance of Trade has remained (volatile) if roughly the same level since about 2004. See:
Source: tradingeconomics.com
My own suspicion is that there is not much support for a libertarian party in the UK.
The electoral system has changed, and it tends to stick in a position for a number of decades....
Are we now entering The Era of Coalitions?
edit: So i think it would have to be a national libertarian party.
We'd have less infighting with an era of triumvirates.
The Lib Dems will almost certainly do better on the day than their poll numbers currently suggest, since local factors and popular MPs are a more important part of their appeal.
Rather enjoyable Grand Prix.
Perez has balls the size of elephants and Grosjean is entertaining.
I hope Red Bull sign them up for next season, those two in the fastest car would make for the most exciting F1 season ever.
"... local factors and popular MPs are used to be a more important part of their appeal"
It's only good news if you plan to sell up and move to a less fashionable - and cheaper - part of town. If you plan to stay in Camden then it doesn't help you at all & may even be negative (e.g. if you want to upsize)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10080835/Ukips-founder-says-the-party-has-gone-completely-fruitcake.html
Grosjean crashing 4 times in one weekend is rather a lot. Lotus aren't as flush as the other top teams, and I can't imagine they'll be very pleased.
Nor does a Libertarian party have to be in favour of unfettered immigration. There is a very strong branch of Libertarian thought that sees mass migration as fundamentally anti-Libertarian as it infringes the property rights of those already settled in a country. I am not saying I agree whole heartedly with that position but there are very strong strands of Libertarianism which are based upon the propertarian principle.
It used to work in Germany because the FDP had a distinct niche that wasn't really left or right. I don't think the LibDems can pull that off.
If UKIP manage to get organised and make it a 4 party system it will be possible, although I suspect you would end up with a Tory/UKIP relationship like the CDU/CSU.
Has a team ever complained to the stewards about one of their own drivers?
Many like myself also aren't particularly enthused by large numbers of UKIP policies and probably won't vote for UKIP in 2015. However the sneering condescension shown to UKIP members by your ilk makes it even less likely that I will vote tory again in the near future. If you show your contempt for people like this you become as reprehensible as the lefties that look down on those with the "wrong" attitudes as well.
Perhaps when the modern metrosexual tories lurched to the left to become new new labour you picked up their bad habits
On rainbows, I'm thinking of having a Rainbow Knight as a politically correct alternative to a Black/Dark Knight. Pondering whether it fits with the general approach to the world (a Dark Knight could work just as well, but in a different way).
I'll choose a different topic then.
I have to say though that Gove seems to be doing a good job, at least if he's upsetting the teaching unions then he must be!
The availability of high loan-to-value (LTV) lending has seen a sharp reduction in the wake of the financial crisis. In 2008, the number of mortgage products with a maximum of 95% LTV was over 700 and for 90% LTV just under a 1,000. By 2012 the numbers had fallen to 350 (90% LTV) and less than a 100 (95% LTV).
The consequences of this contraction for first-time buyers has been average deposits have risen from around 35 per cent of average incomes in 2006 to just under 80 per cent in 2012.
In other words, first time buyers have been all but shut out of the market. In 2012 there were 40 per cent fewer first-time buyers than in 2007. Since 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has estimated that the median age of an ‘unassisted’ [by family] first-time buyer has risen from 30 to 33.
Existing mortgagees with low equity in their properties have also been affected by the lack of availability of high LTV mortgages, meaning that far fewer are moving thereby depleting the available stock of properties suitable for first time buyers.
The overall impact on the market has been that residential property transactions fell by around 50 per cent after 2007 and have changed little since. Current turnover rates are equivalent to houses selling, on average, once every 25 years, compared to once every 15 years before the crisis.
It is clear that the housing market has not been functioning well. The 2012 government introduction of the Funding for Lending scheme (FLS) has reduced bank funding costs enabling interest rate reductions to be passed on the mortgagees and greater availability of mortgage products.
Further intervention, the Help to Buy equity loan and guarantee schemes, have been targetted at removing the high LTV barrier to first time buyers and to stimulate the supply of new-build properties.
In the circumstances of the mortgage credit squeeze evidenced in my previous post none of the measures introduced by Osborne could reasonably be characterised as designed to inflate house prices or create a housing bubble. They are simply stabilisation measures targetted at the most disadvantaged purchaser groups: first time buyers.
Of course your Camden flat increasing in value is only of use if you plan on leaving London to move somewhere cheaper.
So do you have any plans to return to Cornwall or Hereford or move to the South Tyrol or Algarve ?
More to the point where's tim ?
Should we contact the Birkenhead emergency services ?
He did diss Yorkshire though.
In Rome it's down from 57.2 to 37.69%.
http://rowennadavis.org.uk/
vs
http://sarah4southampton.org.uk/
vs
http://satvirkaur.co.uk/
so far
That is has done so for so long a period of time and during variable economic conditions suggests it has become a permanent feature unless there are fundamental changes to our economy.
But its still over 15 years since Britain has a month of trade surplus.
By far the longest period on the ONS date.
If anyone has long term historical data I would be interested to know if and when that was ever exceeded.
I have a feeling this Ibiza thing is going to be bigger than Morrissons. Or the guinness thing.
Sarah surely has that one sewn up.
I myself have lived long enough to take electoral promises with the proverbial pinch of salt and dont trust any established politician. So it is with relief that I can turn to UKIP to see if there is something new in air. Something new in British politics. Farage, however you may dislike him personally, (and I presume it is a personality clash between you and him), Has been a boon to UKIP. However even he says that UKIP can no longer be a one man band and is now recruiting men and women of some stature and spirit to work as the executive of the party. (Conference will later vote yay or nay on these picks). For the first time in nearly 100 years the face british politics may be changing, and when there is change and anger about; there is also hope.
I cannot write as well as some on PB, so I hope you'll forgive the grammatical errors I have made.
I plan a devious campaign to turn her blue.
Yes, I guess she is the starting point favourite. Unless she cocks it up somehow.
But Avery will surely visit the place to push for Rowenna.
ETA: Laughably staged photoshoots and things, by way of contrast, are inherently amusing and since it's about public image, even slightly relevant.
Osborne's schemes will lead to a continuation of that.
All you're supporting is short term boosts to deal with a long term problem.
Until people accept that a house is for living in and is not a cash machine that problem will continue. And this is a problem which has been encouraged by governments eager for a happy electorate drugged up on consumerism. Osborne's pissed off because that's not the case at the moment, hence his schemes.
And I'll also point out that there's nothing wrong with people having to put down a 10% deposit.
That's what they did during the 20th century, a century which, unlike this one, saw continual increases in home ownership.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10076300/UKIP-removes-Italian-MEP-for-racist-insult-at-black-Italian-minister.html
After Tosca Sofia Antonia Cabello - Watson...I found another wonderful name... Nigel de Gruchy (Secretary of Orpington CLP). Can we promote him too?
I also agree that the longer he stays away from Britain, the better.
Hammond's appeal to permanently unhappy tory backbenchers as a boring safe pair of hands may be increasing.
In fact, it could be a good move for him, the equivalent of people who transition to home working and don't put their office number through so they can get some work done uninterrupted. Cameron might be more effective sunning on the beach and not having to bump into self-harming rebels, the british press and the unwashed masses (excepting those also on the beach) all the goddamn time.
Someone called Nigel de Gruchy used to be head of one of the main teaching unions. I remember having several days off school in the 1990s thanks to him.
Never mind the name, anyone volunteering to be CLP secretary in Orpington deserves reward of some kind.
The memory of the Italian waitress saga has ruined what had otherwise been an excellent day.
I have been intrigued why Camden seems to be having a particular boom. I guess it's because yuppies can no longer afford to live in K&C, Westminster or Islington. Yet most of Camden, trendy as it is, is still pretty dirty looking.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the market when a lot of the housing benefit people have to move out. Without the government assisted demand, will prices slow down, or will places benefit from low income people moving out and the remaining population being wealthier on average? Economics would say the former, but there are quite a few high streets in the capital that could become a lot nicer should Southern Fried Chicken close down due to lack of clientele and a frozen yoghurt shop move in.
http://www.orpingtonlabour.org.uk/about/
They are campaigning for democratic socialism!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10064253/A-quiet-little-cul-de-sac-is-right-up-our-street.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10082018/Pope-attacks-slavery-and-pain-inflicted-by-the-Mafia.html