"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.
...
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.
...
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.
You need to deploy both short term and long term measures,
In the short term there is a need to avoid catastrophic falls in house prices as have been experienced on the continent, even in the strong economies, like the Netherlands where house prices fell by 8.9% last year.
Such falls destroy bank balance sheets, depress consumer confidence and aggravate downside recessionary risks.
Osborne also needs the housing market to remain liquid. Conditions which exclude first time buyers and lock young families into their first home destroy labour market flexibility.
In the long term the solutions are to increase the housing stock to narrow the gap with demand and to control inflationary pressures through monetary and fiscal measures. But such measures will require decades of consistently applied policies to achieve their goals. The aim must be to engineer a soft landing by holding house price inflation below general inflation until the ratios to house puchase costs to average wages slowly return to an acceptable level.
There is nothing in Osborne's short term measures to stablilise the housing market and return liquidity at the bottom end which is inconsistent or incompatible with the above long term goals.
The problem with Cameron going on holiday isn't Cameron going on holiday its that he always engages in imbecilic photostunts while he's out there.
The memory of the Italian waitress saga has ruined what had otherwise been an excellent day.
Problem is that if Cameron didn't permit at least one photo-shoot, people like you and tim would say that he's "hiding".
Hah, indeed. And if he worked himself ragged and took no breaks at all, started going prematurely grey and the like, he'd be showing he wasn't physically or mentally up to the job, was cracking under the pressure.
I acknowledge that the above paragraph might seem a bit harsh, but where people are not just joking (poorly), but attempting to make it seem a significant thing that Cameron is going to Ibiza (in whichever way it is characterized), how can it not be a reasonable presumption to believe the above would be true?
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.
Absolutely not. The Lib Dems are still massively big government and the cut in the top rate of tax was not something they wanted. They only went along with it because they had no choice.
The support for gay marriage (which I whole heartedly agree with) makes them Liberal not Libertarian..
The Lib Dems are old fashioned Statists believing social change must be led and controlled by cemtral government.
The idea that the BNP are Libertarian is ludicrous but I will play your game and explain why, giving your argument more a more reasoned response than it deserves.
One policy does not make a party Libertarian. The fact that the BNP are in favour of nationalised industries and centralised control of just about everything means they are about as far from Libertarian as you can get. That is before you even get on to the basic concept of racism.
I am afraid your attempts to derail the argument in that way fail before you even start.
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.
Primrose Hill, Hampstead and Dartmouth Park are all largely in Camden. Throw in the big houses between Kentish Town and Tufnell Park, Oak Village, the the back of Mornington Cresent and a few other places, all within a walk of the tube and Hampstead Heath, and you are looking at prime territory - especially as many of the state schools are well regarded. A lot of the houses were council owned once, but were sold off. Those who bought them made an absolute killing. The home I grew up in was purchased by my parents for £7,000 in 1970. The house next door has just gone for £2 million. It's ridiculous.
He's fine, but said he got a bit bored with pb - felt the site had become dominated by people quarelling with each other.
It's one reason I don't know how frontline politicians manage to keep at the job without burning out really quickly - unlike backbench MPs, it's not as though they get as much time to actually help and listen to people in their constituency and feel good about representing them and trying to solve their problems (or for the bad eggs, as much time lining their own pockets as a result of their position).
Instead, they just spend all their time spouting the same stupid, cliche talking points on every mindless issue to score political points. No wonder they all seem so frustrated by ordinary people, when they spend the bulk of their time preparing for or delivering the slightly cleaned up version of youtube trolling comments. I'd go stark raving mad in a week. Makes you want to go to Ibiza, I'll bet.
Idea for a new thread: If Cameron has to go on holiday, where would be the least damaging place for him to visit? Steer clear of the Killing Fields, or anywhere in France I'd bet. Bad headlines (or rather good fodder for headline writers looking to make trouble).
And as an awesome farewell for the evening, these are several years out of date but I'd only just discovered them, for fans of Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim:
Richard Tyndall - You are mistaking the Kennedy LDs for the present LDs, indeed Clegg has never been for big government and was criticising Brown for expanding the state even before the 2010 election. As libertarianism by its very nature holds liberty as the highest political end, you cannot exclude social liberty, and full equality under the law for homosexuals, from it. I never said the BNP were libertarian on any other area than immigration, which of course they are not, as in a libertarian society based on liberty people should be free to move wherever there is demand for their labour, including across international boundaries!
Idea for a new thread: If Cameron has to go on holiday, where would be the least damaging place for him to visit? Steer clear of the Killing Fields, or anywhere in France I'd bet. Bad headlines (or rather good fodder for headline writers looking to make trouble).
And as an awesome farewell for the evening, these are several years out of date but I'd only just discovered them, for fans of Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim:
"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.
How much has your flat increased in value since 2010 Sean ?
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 ?
Conservatively, I'd say my flat has increased by 20-25% in value since 2010. Arguably, because of developments near and far, it has increased by 35-40%. That is a pretty healthy rise.
It could all disappear tomorrow, of course, yet I remember having this same debate with my very smart day-trading brother, when I first bought. I wanted him to partner with me, and invest £100k or more, so we could afford a TWO bed flat in a nice bit of Camden or Bloomsbury, (these were then about £400k).
He said he was too skeptical of the London property market, and felt it was unsafe. I agreed he had a point but I had a yearning to buy after a lifetime of renting, also I still felt London was a good bet (there has been no 5 year period in my adult life when London property prices have gone down)
The £400k flats we were looking at then are now £550-600k. My brother now thinks he maybe should have invested, and made a mistake. We shall see.
I take on board all the remarks about illiquidity. I am stuck on the ladder, unless I want to emigrate. It's not like owning bonds you can sell. Nonetheless it feels a lot nicer than owning bonds.
I own property in both KT6 and W4. Property prices of both are now higher than 2008 - markedly so.
He's fine, but said he got a bit bored with pb - felt the site had become dominated by people quarelling with each other.
It's one reason I don't know how frontline politicians manage to keep at the job without burning out really quickly - unlike backbench MPs, it's not as though they get as much time to actually help and listen to people in their constituency and feel good about representing them and trying to solve their problems (or for the bad eggs, as much time lining their own pockets as a result of their position).
Instead, they just spend all their time spouting the same stupid, cliche talking points on every mindless issue to score political points. No wonder they all seem so frustrated by ordinary people, when they spend the bulk of their time preparing for or delivering the slightly cleaned up version of youtube trolling comments. I'd go stark raving mad in a week. Makes you want to go to Ibiza, I'll bet.
I suspect you're right, kle4. I remember talking to a senior Cabinet minister about how he coped with a period when he was being given a particularly rough time in the media. He said he simply stopped reading papers for a few days and declined to comment to any journalist. When he returned to them, they'd all moved on and he never heard anything further about whatever it was (I've forgotten it too). "It was like a holiday," he said with a mild smile. Not sure this is the ideal media-politician interaction, but with crap like the Telegraph front page I can see the temptation.
Richard Tyndall - You are mistaking the Kennedy LDs for the present LDs, indeed Clegg has never been for big government and was criticising Brown for expanding the state even before the 2010 election. As libertarianism by its very nature holds liberty as the highest political end, you cannot exclude social liberty, and full equality under the law for homosexuals, from it. I never said the BNP were libertarian on any other area than immigration, which of course they are not, as in a libertarian society based on liberty people should be free to move wherever there is demand for their labour, including across international boundaries!
Except that's obviously really stupid unless you're saying the consequences to the receiving population have no weight.
MrJones - I am NOT engaging in an argument about the rights and wrongs of immigration, merely giving the libertarian viewpoint (which I suppose would also argue the skills of the immigrant would help expand the local economy anyway).
Interesting discussion about UKIP and Libertarianism here is the paradox that I perceive. Personally as an individual, I really don't care what people get up to as long as they are responsible about it and do not harm or interfere with people or deprive people as a result.
However, as a parent (or grandparent) my views are somewhat different. There are things which as a parent I do not agree with (such as the legalisation of controlled drugs). So as parent/grandparent, I tend far more towards social conservatism and given children tend to take priority over just about anything in this society, social conservatism is likely to remain the norm.
Combine that with the inability of too many people to control their behaviour and the associated significant cost that has to society and it makes it almost impossible for any political party to be truly libertarian and hope to be credible to the vast majority of voters.
The White House Hotel is in that area I think. A relative of mine used to talk about it as if it was some kind of amazing place, although I don't know how much truth there is in that.
SmithersJones2013 - Indeed, you are right on the political point, but personally I would legalise all drugs, with the possible exception of heroin, and prostitution, albeit with neither legal for anyone under 18
MrJones - I am NOT engaging in an argument about the rights and wrongs of immigration, merely giving the libertarian viewpoint (which I suppose would also argue the skills of the immigrant would help expand the local economy anyway).
It's not a libertarian viewpoint if it ignores the consequences to the receiving population.
SmithersJones2013 - Indeed, you are right on the political point, but personally I would legalise all drugs, with the possible exception of heroin, and prostitution, albeit with neither legal for anyone under 18
But given the nature of youth by setting the threshold at 18 you are in fact inviting children anything up to several years younger to participate. You just have to look at the issues with smoking and drinking and the cost to society in attempting to control that to know that legalisation of drugs would only further increase the size of government.
If Libertarians also believe in a small state the leglisation of drugs would seem to be counterproductive?
Idea for a new thread: If Cameron has to go on holiday, where would be the least damaging place for him to visit? Steer clear of the Killing Fields, or anywhere in France I'd bet. Bad headlines (or rather good fodder for headline writers looking to make trouble).
And as an awesome farewell for the evening, these are several years out of date but I'd only just discovered them, for fans of Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim:
Looking at paper review on Sky.The Sun and The Telegraph comparing and contrasting Cameron being on holiday in Ibiza and the tragedy back home.The Mail is also putting the knife into Dave with David Ruffley's warning on Sky again.Once upon a time you might expect this to be in the Daily Mirror but no,as it still looks like Rupert is pulling the strings. Mike's bet on the Tories sticking the knife in looks good value,even allowing for the continuing undercurrent of the implications of Leveson.If Cameron has any sense he will continue to play for time on Leveson and leave it as part of a generous inheritance for Ed Miliband.
MrJones - I am NOT engaging in an argument about the rights and wrongs of immigration, merely giving the libertarian viewpoint (which I suppose would also argue the skills of the immigrant would help expand the local economy anyway).
It's not a libertarian viewpoint if it ignores the consequences to the receiving population.
edit: obviously
Indeed that of course is the other paradox for the Libertarian. Who prevalls when cultures or behaviour conflict? Whose liberty is to be sacrificed to maintain the others liberty?
Idea for a new thread: If Cameron has to go on holiday, where would be the least damaging place for him to visit? Steer clear of the Killing Fields, or anywhere in France I'd bet. Bad headlines (or rather good fodder for headline writers looking to make trouble).
And as an awesome farewell for the evening, these are several years out of date but I'd only just discovered them, for fans of Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim:
Why not somewhere in Britain ? You know, that is perfectly possible !
Sure, it's possible, but if memory serves when he does that he's criticised for doing it as a stunt by so obviously not going abroad. So many English people in Ibiza surely, it must be just like holidaying in Britain anyway. This hypothetical thread will need a poll to decide the best option, clearly.
Mr Jones - Why not? They are free to take their labours elsewhere to areas which take more value of their skills if they cannot get work locally (at least in libertarian theory)
SmithersJones - No, as it would take drugs and prostitution out of the hands of criminals, saving a fortune in policing. As for young people, well many take drugs and use prostitutes when it is illegal anyway, they would have to produce ID to get drugs and use prostitutes as they do for cigarattes and alcohol now
Sorry about that. The reason is I haven't been able to get into my email account for a few weeks. What happened was that I was having to change the password every day for "security issues"; I was toggling between two different passwords each time I had to change it, but then neither of them worked. Maybe I made a mistake entering one of them when tired, although I would have had to have made the mistake twice which is a bit unlikely. I might have to ask you to send the email again to a new account. I haven't make any further progress yet with the genealogical problem.
Mr Jones - Why not? They are free to take their labours elsewhere to areas which take more value of their skills if they cannot get work locally (at least in libertarian theory)
MrJones - I am NOT engaging in an argument about the rights and wrongs of immigration, merely giving the libertarian viewpoint (which I suppose would also argue the skills of the immigrant would help expand the local economy anyway).
It's not a libertarian viewpoint if it ignores the consequences to the receiving population.
edit: obviously
Indeed that of course is the other paradox for the Libertarian. Who prevalls when cultures or behaviour conflict? Whose liberty is to be sacrificed to maintain the others liberty?
Exactly, although i don't think it's a paradox simply a balance to be struck.
SmithersJones - No, as it would take drugs and prostitution out of the hands of criminals, saving a fortune in policing. As for young people, well many take drugs and use prostitutes when it is illegal anyway, they would have to produce ID to get drugs and use prostitutes as they do for cigarattes and alcohol now
The criminal aspect is not significant (the criminals would find something else to do like developing new untested drugs or making the drugs without a license and selling them on the black market shortcutting all the bureaucracy around legalised drugs and undercutting the legal drug costs). Basically they would just carry on. Drugs would still be smuggled just as cigarettes and booze are from the nations where the cheapest drugs could be purchased. All you would do is change the nature of the criminal drugs business, you wouldn't actually stop it.
What legalising drugs would do is provide that tacit approval for people to go and get off their face on drugs just as they do now with alcohol. You would in fact expand the drug dealer's market amd make drug participation and potentially addiction more widespread. Now how much time and money do government spend attempting to control society's behaviour regarding alcohol? How much time do they spend trying to control smoking? The simple fact is legalisation would mean more people doing drugs a lot more.
You are fooling yourself if you believe that somehow legalising drugs would solve the current problem. It wouldn't. It would just make the problems more widespread and justify a significant increase in those parts of government such as Public Health in order to control the legalised behaviour. So you would once again encourage government to dictate behaviour to society. Hardly a libertarian outcome. The problem is once legalised there isn't any going back and such a move will further burden society with yet more bureaucracy, yet more government interference and more expense.
MrJones - I am NOT engaging in an argument about the rights and wrongs of immigration, merely giving the libertarian viewpoint (which I suppose would also argue the skills of the immigrant would help expand the local economy anyway).
It's not a libertarian viewpoint if it ignores the consequences to the receiving population.
edit: obviously
Indeed that of course is the other paradox for the Libertarian. Who prevalls when cultures or behaviour conflict? Whose liberty is to be sacrificed to maintain the others liberty?
Exactly, although i don't think it's a paradox simply a balance to be struck.
I agree its a question of common sense. I was referring to it as a paradox only in terms of the concept of Libertarianism as a theory.
Compared to 2010 there was a small swing from Con to LD of 1.22%
The totals I got were slightly different from the ones I was previously using for my overall totals which I've now updated. (I think I was using Wikipedia before):
Comments
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/locals.png
In the short term there is a need to avoid catastrophic falls in house prices as have been experienced on the continent, even in the strong economies, like the Netherlands where house prices fell by 8.9% last year.
Such falls destroy bank balance sheets, depress consumer confidence and aggravate downside recessionary risks.
Osborne also needs the housing market to remain liquid. Conditions which exclude first time buyers and lock young families into their first home destroy labour market flexibility.
In the long term the solutions are to increase the housing stock to narrow the gap with demand and to control inflationary pressures through monetary and fiscal measures. But such measures will require decades of consistently applied policies to achieve their goals. The aim must be to engineer a soft landing by holding house price inflation below general inflation until the ratios to house puchase costs to average wages slowly return to an acceptable level.
There is nothing in Osborne's short term measures to stablilise the housing market and return liquidity at the bottom end which is inconsistent or incompatible with the above long term goals.
I acknowledge that the above paragraph might seem a bit harsh, but where people are not just joking (poorly), but attempting to make it seem a significant thing that Cameron is going to Ibiza (in whichever way it is characterized), how can it not be a reasonable presumption to believe the above would be true?
The support for gay marriage (which I whole heartedly agree with) makes them Liberal not Libertarian..
The Lib Dems are old fashioned Statists believing social change must be led and controlled by cemtral government.
The idea that the BNP are Libertarian is ludicrous but I will play your game and explain why, giving your argument more a more reasoned response than it deserves.
One policy does not make a party Libertarian. The fact that the BNP are in favour of nationalised industries and centralised control of just about everything means they are about as far from Libertarian as you can get. That is before you even get on to the basic concept of racism.
I am afraid your attempts to derail the argument in that way fail before you even start.
Instead, they just spend all their time spouting the same stupid, cliche talking points on every mindless issue to score political points. No wonder they all seem so frustrated by ordinary people, when they spend the bulk of their time preparing for or delivering the slightly cleaned up version of youtube trolling comments. I'd go stark raving mad in a week. Makes you want to go to Ibiza, I'll bet.
New digital edition spearheaded by Guardian deputy editor Katharine Viner opens with exclusive Julia Gillard interview":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/26/guardian-australia-launch-julia-gillard
And as an awesome farewell for the evening, these are several years out of date but I'd only just discovered them, for fans of Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/miracle-of-sound/5350-Nord-Mead-Skyrim
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/miracle-of-sound/2965-Age-of-the-Dragon-Dragon-Age-2-Song
Caroline Abbott (2010 Chesterfield candidate)
Fleur Butler (Richmondshire Cllr)
Spencer Pitfield http://www.spencerpitfield.com/
Karl Poulson (2005 Keighley and 2001 Tynemouth candidate)
John Proctor (Leeds Cllr)
Alex Story (2010 Wakefield candidate)
the winner will get slot 2 which is a winnable position
It combines two of PB's favourite topics.
My grandfather was brought up at 6 Park Village East...
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/PVE.jpg
Mandelson lives next door now...
However, as a parent (or grandparent) my views are somewhat different. There are things which as a parent I do not agree with (such as the legalisation of controlled drugs). So as parent/grandparent, I tend far more towards social conservatism and given children tend to take priority over just about anything in this society, social conservatism is likely to remain the norm.
Combine that with the inability of too many people to control their behaviour and the associated significant cost that has to society and it makes it almost impossible for any political party to be truly libertarian and hope to be credible to the vast majority of voters.
edit: obviously
If Libertarians also believe in a small state the leglisation of drugs would seem to be counterproductive?
Mike's bet on the Tories sticking the knife in looks good value,even allowing for the continuing undercurrent of the implications of Leveson.If Cameron has any sense he will continue to play for time on Leveson and leave it as part of a generous inheritance for Ed Miliband.
Right up there with John Major and Gordon Browns worst headlines.
Not far. Btw, did you ever sort out that genealogical problem you mentioned? You never got back to me...
Sorry about that. The reason is I haven't been able to get into my email account for a few weeks. What happened was that I was having to change the password every day for "security issues"; I was toggling between two different passwords each time I had to change it, but then neither of them worked. Maybe I made a mistake entering one of them when tired, although I would have had to have made the mistake twice which is a bit unlikely. I might have to ask you to send the email again to a new account. I haven't make any further progress yet with the genealogical problem.
What legalising drugs would do is provide that tacit approval for people to go and get off their face on drugs just as they do now with alcohol. You would in fact expand the drug dealer's market amd make drug participation and potentially addiction more widespread. Now how much time and money do government spend attempting to control society's behaviour regarding alcohol? How much time do they spend trying to control smoking? The simple fact is legalisation would mean more people doing drugs a lot more.
You are fooling yourself if you believe that somehow legalising drugs would solve the current problem. It wouldn't. It would just make the problems more widespread and justify a significant increase in those parts of government such as Public Health in order to control the legalised behaviour. So you would once again encourage government to dictate behaviour to society. Hardly a libertarian outcome. The problem is once legalised there isn't any going back and such a move will further burden society with yet more bureaucracy, yet more government interference and more expense.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGxDZjhmTEpGcTVUS2ktVG1JUmVlRFE#gid=0
Compared to 2010 there was a small swing from Con to LD of 1.22%
The totals I got were slightly different from the ones I was previously using for my overall totals which I've now updated. (I think I was using Wikipedia before):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDFzVlVSWGtOaGlNQllBQjBmVzc0Mnc#gid=0
Previously the totals were:
Con 52410, Lab 27725, UKIP 23046, LD 30891, Green 10266, Others 7,628
Now:
Con 51638, Lab 27727, UKIP 23476, LD 30848, Green 9933, Ind 5387, Others 2241