@AveryLP_redux (it's so difficult to keep track of your many soubriquets) I think you're overegging my enthusiasm for the MP for Tatton - and then some. I merely noted his likely current line of thought.
For 2015 he should be focussing less on past success, real or imagined, and more on the forward offer.
The benefits of a single unhyphenated log on name are manifest.
I am comforted by the similarity of our responses to Mr. Thomas, that we share a concern for the facts.
In 2015, St. George will indeed be focussing on the forward offer. Lovely, jubbly tax cuts bribes for us all to vote on.
As I suggested to another richard over the weekend these will be sold as a "demand side stimulus" to placate Ed Balls and the doubters in the IMF.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
The poll for the Open Europe think tank also found that 39 per cent of those who had voted Tory in 2010 would back UKIP if the European election were held now.
In a general election, the poll suggested Labour would take 37 per cent of the votes. This would give Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives on 26 per cent, with UKIP on 20 per cent.
The Liberal Democrats would be trailing behind on 9 per cent.
That's really the strangest poll I've ever seen. With the SAME SAMPLE, the DIFFERENCE of Westminster and European intentions appear to be:
Lab -14 (!) Con -5 UKIP +7 (not that much of a jump really) LD +8 (!! wtf?) Others +4 (OK, that's the Greens)
We can spin that all kinds of ways, but it's well weird, isn't it? And before we try to explain it, it's not at all like the last YG Westminster/Europe poll a couple of weeks back, which was IIRC something like a plausible -8/-8/+12/-1. How can both be right? Perhaps there were some intervening questions which affected the mood of respondents.
What is a European vote for Labour actually FOR though ? If you are a rabid europhile and want to see further European integration, then Liberal Democrat is a sensible vote. If you are anti-Europe - UKIP. If you are Euro-sceptic and want to see a renegotiation of our position, Tory.
What pray-tell does a vote for Labour in a European election achieve, Nick ?
@SeanT Many of the Telegraph's readers are elderly. You seem determined to accelerate the decline in the website's readership by causing apoplectic fits.
I do feel, however, that the picture editor could have been more enterprising. Not even a hint of a transvestite antelope?
That one bemused me but some of the comments that the Telegraph seem happy to publish seem dangerously close to illegal to me. Certainly a lot closer to offences under the Equality Act than some daft lads mags.
I appreciate the brief is to poke the beast with a stick for a reaction but I really think a bit of moderator activity is called for.
Why would the Telegraph be interested in spending money on a moderator that would simultaneously make the threads less interesting (vile? fascinating? choose your poison...) while protecting those who perhaps need a quiet visit from the plod for a 'word in their shell-like'?
The poll for the Open Europe think tank also found that 39 per cent of those who had voted Tory in 2010 would back UKIP if the European election were held now.
In a general election, the poll suggested Labour would take 37 per cent of the votes. This would give Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives on 26 per cent, with UKIP on 20 per cent.
The Liberal Democrats would be trailing behind on 9 per cent.
That's really the strangest poll I've ever seen. With the SAME SAMPLE, the DIFFERENCE of Westminster and European intentions appear to be:
Lab -14 (!) Con -5 UKIP +7 (not that much of a jump really) LD +8 (!! wtf?) Others +4 (OK, that's the Greens)
We can spin that all kinds of ways, but it's well weird, isn't it? And before we try to explain it, it's not at all like the last YG Westminster/Europe poll a couple of weeks back, which was IIRC something like a plausible -8/-8/+12/-1. How can both be right? Perhaps there were some intervening questions which affected the mood of respondents.
More than weird, I'm waiting for the full data tables to go up.
I can only assume they've applied some bizarre turnout filter for each election.
Leading questions or a flat out error seem more likely than those results actually being correct! I know Mike always says that a rogue poll is one we dont like the results of but I dont really have any skin in the game and it just looks odd to me.
The poll for the Open Europe think tank also found that 39 per cent of those who had voted Tory in 2010 would back UKIP if the European election were held now.
In a general election, the poll suggested Labour would take 37 per cent of the votes. This would give Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives on 26 per cent, with UKIP on 20 per cent.
The Liberal Democrats would be trailing behind on 9 per cent.
That's really the strangest poll I've ever seen. With the SAME SAMPLE, the DIFFERENCE of Westminster and European intentions appear to be:
Lab -14 (!) Con -5 UKIP +7 (not that much of a jump really) LD +8 (!! wtf?) Others +4 (OK, that's the Greens)
We can spin that all kinds of ways, but it's well weird, isn't it? And before we try to explain it, it's not at all like the last YG Westminster/Europe poll a couple of weeks back, which was IIRC something like a plausible -8/-8/+12/-1. How can both be right? Perhaps there were some intervening questions which affected the mood of respondents.
Intervening questions is one possibility, the other one might be certainty to vote. The turnout is normally lower in Euro elections, so perhaps the remaining core of Lib Dem voters is more determined and Labour voters less committed?
You'd hope that looking at the data tables would help to unravel it.
Labour voters (Past the 30% share) generally are the laziest of all voters, they get up once every five years to trudge down to the ballot box, tick Labour then don't bother too much in the other elections. A good reason why a crap performance in the 2014 Euros will mask the scale of Miliband's win in 2015.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
The lending figures I have referred to are for the UK. Quoting from the executive summary: "Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
What is a European vote for Labour actually FOR though ? If you are a rabid europhile and want to see further European integration, then Liberal Democrat is a sensible vote. If you are anti-Europe - UKIP. If you are Euro-sceptic and want to see a renegotiation of our position, Tory.
What pray-tell does a vote for Labour in a European election achieve, Nick ?
It's for sensible pragmatic cooperation without either fanatical Europhile zeal or quarrelsome Euroscepticaemia. I agree that's not very exciting, and I guess LibDems do better at Euros anyway as they're PR so perhaps it's partly the tactical Lib-Lab vote acting differently for the Euros and Westminster due to an intelligent familiarity with voting systems. But I wouldn't have thought most voters are into arcane distinctions like this, and no previous poll on the subject has shown anything similar.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
You've got your head firmly stuck in the sand.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting further increases in housing benefit despite government attempts to cut the bill.
The latest forecast from the independent monitoring body, issued alongside the Budget, has increased its predictions by £0.5 billion in 2013/14, £0.6 billion in 2014/5, £0.8 billion in 2015/16 and 2016/17, and £1 billion in 2017/18.
The total rise of £3.7 billion over the five year period comes on top of a £2.3 billion increase in the OBR’s forecast in December released alongside the autumn statement.
Everyone knows what is coming, because it's govt policy under Osborne to make it happen
tim
You know very well that the forecast increases in housing benefit payments do not reflect forecast housing price increases.
They result from government policy to narrow the gap between social housing and private sector rents. A policy which was also pursued by the previous Labour government.
The goal is to increase liquidity in the social housing market and to create conditions which encourage private sector supply of social housing through the provision of construction, ownership and property management services.
I don't know where your head is stuck but it certainly doesn't appear to be in sand.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
The lending figures I have referred to are for the UK. Quoting from the executive summary: "Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
No, it's not a housing boom. But it is a effective way of subsidising buy-to-let speculators in certain areas where there is a big demand for housing - such as London and Leamington (big student population). I am not sure this is an effective use of public money; especially as it could well lead to higher housing benefit payments.
My google-fu skills have failed to find any record of a comparable poll from the time when Labour were in Government. I have my suspicions about what this would show...
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
You've got your head firmly stuck in the sand.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting further increases in housing benefit despite government attempts to cut the bill.
The latest forecast from the independent monitoring body, issued alongside the Budget, has increased its predictions by £0.5 billion in 2013/14, £0.6 billion in 2014/5, £0.8 billion in 2015/16 and 2016/17, and £1 billion in 2017/18.
The total rise of £3.7 billion over the five year period comes on top of a £2.3 billion increase in the OBR’s forecast in December released alongside the autumn statement.
Everyone knows what is coming, because it's govt policy under Osborne to make it happen
You are confusing the HB bill and the housing market. There is only a weak correlation between the two.
HB was on a strong upward path in 2010 and the steps that the government have taken to restrict it have only slowed down the rate of growth. There is an unmet need for new housing in this country in both the rented and owned sector. Until that need is met there will be some upward pressure but this was grossly exaggerated under the last government by their willingness to pay top dollar in HB for those who were not paying their own rent.
The reforms of this government have (a) required the HB to be in a middle band of rents instead of the top; (b) capped the maximum that can be paid; (c) charged those renting larger properties than they need for the additional bedrooms; and (d) sought to restrict the availability of HB at the margins. All of these were correct policies (if insufficient) and all were inevitably opposed by Labour.
The poll for the Open Europe think tank also found that 39 per cent of those who had voted Tory in 2010 would back UKIP if the European election were held now.
In a general election, the poll suggested Labour would take 37 per cent of the votes. This would give Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives on 26 per cent, with UKIP on 20 per cent.
The Liberal Democrats would be trailing behind on 9 per cent.
That's really the strangest poll I've ever seen. With the SAME SAMPLE, the DIFFERENCE of Westminster and European intentions appear to be:
Lab -14 (!) Con -5 UKIP +7 (not that much of a jump really) LD +8 (!! wtf?) Others +4 (OK, that's the Greens)
We can spin that all kinds of ways, but it's well weird, isn't it? And before we try to explain it, it's not at all like the last YG Westminster/Europe poll a couple of weeks back, which was IIRC something like a plausible -8/-8/+12/-1. How can both be right? Perhaps there were some intervening questions which affected the mood of respondents.
More than weird, I'm waiting for the full data tables to go up.
I can only assume they've applied some bizarre turnout filter for each election.
We'll see, but my theory is that it's down to the question order. Open Europe will have had a bunch of questions in between designed to produce good numbers for their policy of staying in the EU but the EU being less integrationist than it actually is. Asking the questions will prime the numbers for parties with strong pro- or anti- EU positions.
In reality the voters won't be voting mainly on EU constitutional issues in the Euro elections. This will be inadvertently sensible, as they're mainly decided by the member states, not the parliament.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
The lending figures I have referred to are for the UK. Quoting from the executive summary: "Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
No, it's not a housing boom. But it is a effective way of subsidising buy-to-let speculators in certain areas where there is a big demand for housing - such as London and Leamington (big student population). I am not sure this is an effective use of public money; especially as it could well lead to higher housing benefit payments.
I totally agree with that SO and have said so on here many times. I find it bewildering that Ed and his gang thought that buy to let landlords were so in need of protection that they should constantly oppose any restrictions on HB.
I have friends who have made serious money off the public purse in this way. Sadly they are the same ones as will go on and on about how benefits should be cut not recognising that their fortunes have been built on such misguided largesse of the state. They are in fact greater and more successful benefit junkies than the people they moan about who are genuinely poor and in need.
The poll for the Open Europe think tank also found that 39 per cent of those who had voted Tory in 2010 would back UKIP if the European election were held now.
In a general election, the poll suggested Labour would take 37 per cent of the votes. This would give Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives on 26 per cent, with UKIP on 20 per cent.
The Liberal Democrats would be trailing behind on 9 per cent.
That's really the strangest poll I've ever seen. With the SAME SAMPLE, the DIFFERENCE of Westminster and European intentions appear to be:
Lab -14 (!) Con -5 UKIP +7 (not that much of a jump really) LD +8 (!! wtf?) Others +4 (OK, that's the Greens)
We can spin that all kinds of ways, but it's well weird, isn't it? And before we try to explain it, it's not at all like the last YG Westminster/Europe poll a couple of weeks back, which was IIRC something like a plausible -8/-8/+12/-1. How can both be right? Perhaps there were some intervening questions which affected the mood of respondents.
More than weird, I'm waiting for the full data tables to go up.
I can only assume they've applied some bizarre turnout filter for each election.
We'll see, but my theory is that it's down to the question order. Open Europe will have had a bunch of questions in between designed to produce good numbers for their policy of staying in the EU but the EU being less integrationist than it actually is. Asking the questions will prime the numbers for parties with strong pro- or anti- EU positions.
In reality the voters won't be voting mainly on EU constitutional issues in the Euro elections. This will be inadvertently sensible, as they're mainly decided by the member states, not the parliament.
I'm reminded of this ComRes poll from 2009
We’ve had a Euro poll from ComRes which has been commissioned by the Green Party – who come out rather well. The shares are – CON 24%: LAB 22%: LDEM 14%, UKIP 17%: Green 15%: BNP 2%. The poll was not past vote weighted which generally means that the sample would not have been politically balanced and skewed quite considerably towards Labour. It is for this reason that I’m not attaching much importance to it.
This is the sort of polling that they had at the 1992 general election
The methodology for the comres is up, and some details up,
ComRes interviewed 2,003 GB adults online between 22nd and 24th May 2013. Data were weighted to be representative British adults aged 18+. Data were also politically weighted to past vote recall.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
The lending figures I have referred to are for the UK. Quoting from the executive summary: "Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
No, it's not a housing boom. But it is a effective way of subsidising buy-to-let speculators in certain areas where there is a big demand for housing - such as London and Leamington (big student population). I am not sure this is an effective use of public money; especially as it could well lead to higher housing benefit payments.
I totally agree with that SO and have said so on here many times. I find it bewildering that Ed and his gang thought that buy to let landlords were so in need of protection that they should constantly oppose any restrictions on HB.
I have friends who have made serious money off the public purse in this way. Sadly they are the same ones as will go on and on about how benefits should be cut not recognising that their fortunes have been built on such misguided largesse of the state. They are in fact greater and more successful benefit junkies than the people they moan about who are genuinely poor and in need.
Ed and his gang are not in power. What they think is neither here nor there. Clearly GO believes that buy-to-let landlords are now in need of a subsidy so that they can get even more money from the government purse. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
The lending figures I have referred to are for the UK. Quoting from the executive summary: "Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
No, it's not a housing boom. But it is a effective way of subsidising buy-to-let speculators in certain areas where there is a big demand for housing - such as London and Leamington (big student population). I am not sure this is an effective use of public money; especially as it could well lead to higher housing benefit payments.
SO, you are better off leaving tim to plough a lonely furrow on housing booms. It better suits his fantasy of being a Cheshire farmer.
The government's current Help to Buy scheme excludes Buy to Let purchasers. Eligibility terms are as follows:
The scheme is designed to help creditworthy households struggling to save for the high mortgage deposits required by lenders in the current environment. For this reason, a mortgage eligible for a guarantee under the scheme will need to:
• be a residential mortgage, and not buy-to-let;
• be taken out by an individual or individuals rather than an incorporated company;
• be on a property in the UK with purchase value of £600,000 or less;
• have a loan-to-value of between 80 per cent and 95 per cent;
• be originated between the dates specified by the scheme;
• be a repayment mortgage, and not interest-only; and
• meet certain minimum requirements in terms of the assessment of the borrower’s ability to pay the mortgage, for example a loan-to-income and credit score test.
This doesn't mean to say that property companies undertaking a residential property ownership and rental business will not qualify for funds under the broader Funding for Lending schemes operated by the BoE on behalf of the Treasury. FLS is after all open to all legitimate enterprises and it would be very odd of a government to exclude property companies.
The methodology for the comres is up, and some details up,
ComRes interviewed 2,003 GB adults online between 22nd and 24th May 2013. Data were weighted to be representative British adults aged 18+. Data were also politically weighted to past vote recall.
The methodology for the comres is up, and some details up,
ComRes interviewed 2,003 GB adults online between 22nd and 24th May 2013. Data were weighted to be representative British adults aged 18+. Data were also politically weighted to past vote recall.
Back home for a Bank-holiday and I read that terrorism was unlikely to effect my life (despite a very near thing in South Quays almost twenty years ago). So what happens when I watch Al-Beeb "News"*...?
Lo-and-behold the anti-terrorist plods have raided a place in Hither-Green**. Looking at the pictures I recognise my London home.
So Gaijin, please engage brain-before-posting. Junior-moderator or not your life is nowhere near the pulse of Europe, let alone Sarf Luhn-dahn.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
The lending figures I have referred to are for the UK. Quoting from the executive summary: "Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
No, it's not a housing boom. But it is a effective way of subsidising buy-to-let speculators in certain areas where there is a big demand for housing - such as London and Leamington (big student population). I am not sure this is an effective use of public money; especially as it could well lead to higher housing benefit payments.
SO, you are better off leaving tim to plough a lonely furrow on housing booms. It better suits his fantasy of being a Cheshire farmer.
The government's current Help to Buy scheme excludes Buy to Let purchasers. Eligibility terms are as follows:
The scheme is designed to help creditworthy households struggling to save for the high mortgage deposits required by lenders in the current environment. For this reason, a mortgage eligible for a guarantee under the scheme will need to:
• be a residential mortgage, and not buy-to-let;
• be taken out by an individual or individuals rather than an incorporated company;
• be on a property in the UK with purchase value of £600,000 or less;
• have a loan-to-value of between 80 per cent and 95 per cent;
• be originated between the dates specified by the scheme;
• be a repayment mortgage, and not interest-only; and
• meet certain minimum requirements in terms of the assessment of the borrower’s ability to pay the mortgage, for example a loan-to-income and credit score test.
This doesn't mean to say that property companies undertaking a residential property ownership and rental business will not qualify for funds under the broader Funding for Lending schemes operated by the BoE on behalf of the Treasury. FLS is after all open to all legitimate enterprises and it would be very odd of a government to exclude property companies.
As I say, I think it is rather strange for the government to be subsidising buy-to-let landlords to then claim more money from the government in the shape of housing benefit. We will have to agree to disagree.
Back home for a Bank-holiday and I read that terrorism was unlikely to effect my life (despite a very near thing in South Quays almost twenty years ago). So what happens when I watch Al-Beeb "News"*...?
Lo-and-behold the anti-terrorist plods have raided a place in Hither-Green**. Looking at the pictures I recognise my London home.
So Gaijin, please engage brain-before-posting. Junior-moderator or not your life is nowhere near the pulse of Europe, let alone Sarf Luhn-dahn.
Are you talking about my comment on the YouGov polling a couple of days ago? The polling question in question was:
How would you rate the chances of you or a member of your family or a good friend being killed or wounded in a terrorist attack?
You can figure out the actual answer to this by dividing the number of people killed or wounded in a terrorist attack by the number of people in the country. This is a very small number divided by a very big number.
Obviously the number of people who have somehow crossed paths with the terrorists - met them, lived in a street where they lived, known someone who knew them, been in the same town as the attack on the day it happened etc - will be quite large. Luckily seeing your London home in a picture hardly ever results in a fatality, or even an injury.
They result from government policy to narrow the gap between social housing and private sector rents.
that's been policy since 2010-11, and of course the taxpayer takes a huge whack, but the recent budget increases reflect in large part rent increases over and above the effect of the earlier policy.
Deliberate govt policy to stoke rents and prices with taxpayer subsidies while the taxpayer also picks up the bill in rising housing benefit.
And it's all to generate a feelgood factor for the next election after all Osborne's previous strategies fell apart.
Rebalancing and higher growth (through austerity) than the USA were supposed to be the plan, now it's blanket spraying of taxpayer subsidies at the housing market/housing benefit bill.
tim
You have to look at the total costs to the taxpayer of housing provision and not simply one element of cost such as rent or linked housing benefit.
The taxpayer "takes a huge whack" if the government (both central and local) owns residential property assets which yield below market returns. The whack in this case is taken in lower market prices for the assets, which are depressed by the lower rental yields and the consequent lack of liquidity in the property sales market.
Increase the rental yields to market rates and then governments strengthen their balance sheets (property asset values increase) and they become able to sell the properties to private sector property companies thereby raising financial resources to invest elsewhere.
The cost-benefit comes from weighing up the benefits to the capital accounts against the increased expenses of paying higher housing benefits. There is also the political benefit of being able to shift the financing of social housing to the private sector thereby relieving the taxpayer of being the sole provider to the market.
Wouldn't it be amusing if Osborne, the worst political strategist since Benn, not only cost the Tories the 2010 election, cost them the 2015 election by splitting the right and economic incompetence but also got his timing wrong on the housing stimulus so it kicks in 2015-6 enabling a PM Miliband to call a snap election after the fops have their heads chopped off by the backbenchers following an indeterminate election result.
Your descent to evermore joyously fantastical hyperbole is a pretty sound indicator that you are rather fearful of a Tory victory in 2015. Growth resuming consistently but modestly throughout this year, accelerating in 2014 accompanied by a modest - it won't be pronounced - feel-slightly-better factor and you know the rest. You do. I know you do.
Enjoy the soggy comfort blanket of Ed's MORI Leader ratings while it lasts.
2002 Feb 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 Oct 184.4 171.0 188.0 196.3 2010 Jun 177.1 171.1 178.7 184.8 2013 Feb 176.2 184.6 173.9 178.1
The peak was October 2007 not in 2008.
London prices have increased by 7.9% not 20% since the peak. This rate of increase is approximately half general inflation growth rates.
The post peak recovery in London started from a substantially lower base than in the UK as a whole and is therefore substantially corrective..
Anyone who thinks that the UK is in any danger of a housing boom clearly has no contact with the industry. We will not have another housing boom until real wages are growing again and that is at least two years away.
I have experience of two parts of the UK: Camden and Leamington. In both places prices are moving northwards, people are paying the asking price and deals are being done quickly. That may not be representative - it probably is not - but these are places that were flat a couple of years ago, but now are not. Camden is going to stay Labour; Leamington is marginal.
In Scotland solicitors continue to be paid off, surveyors have redundancies and estate agents go bust. Prices are not falling but the level of turnover is lower than it has ever been in my professional life (30 years now...sigh) and just cannot sustain the industry that built up around housing.
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
It may not be happening in Scotland, but that does not mean it is not happening.
The lending figures I have referred to are for the UK. Quoting from the executive summary: "Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
No, it's not a housing boom. But it is a effective way of subsidising buy-to-let speculators in certain areas where there is a big demand for housing - such as London and Leamington (big student population). I am not sure this is an effective use of public money; especially as it could well lead to higher housing benefit payments.
SO, you are better off leaving tim to plough a lonely furrow on housing booms. It better suits his fantasy of being a Cheshire farmer.
The government's current Help to Buy scheme excludes Buy to Let purchasers. Eligibility terms are as follows:
The scheme is designed to help creditworthy households struggling to save for the high mortgage deposits required by lenders in the current environment. For this reason, a mortgage eligible for a guarantee under the scheme will need to:
• be a residential mortgage, and not buy-to-let;
• be taken out by an individual or individuals rather than an incorporated company;
• be on a property in the UK with purchase value of £600,000 or less;
• have a loan-to-value of between 80 per cent and 95 per cent;
• be originated between the dates specified by the scheme;
• be a repayment mortgage, and not interest-only; and
• meet certain minimum requirements in terms of the assessment of the borrower’s ability to pay the mortgage, for example a loan-to-income and credit score test.
This doesn't mean to say that property companies undertaking a residential property ownership and rental business will not qualify for funds under the broader Funding for Lending schemes operated by the BoE on behalf of the Treasury. FLS is after all open to all legitimate enterprises and it would be very odd of a government to exclude property companies.
As I say, I think it is rather strange for the government to be subsidising buy-to-let landlords to then claim more money from the government in the shape of housing benefit. We will have to agree to disagree.
You have deliberately misunderstood.
The FLS schemes no more discriminate in favour of property companies than they do other commercial or manufacturing enterprise.
A company involved in publishing data on intellectual property is just as eligible for FLS finance as a company specialising in the provision of residential rental property.
FLS is designed to increase the supply of credit to the economy as a whole.
Don't worry Fluffy, the chances of Al Queda or the security services cracking the code you write in are close to zero.
Don't worry Wee-Timmy:
EiT responded in an adult-manner. Keep dragging your knuckles over your keyboard: With a one-in-five-hundred hit-rate we will next read something interesting from you - pfft- about five-thirty-three pm, Friday 31st March 2013 (BST)...?
Wouldn't it be amusing if Osborne, the worst political strategist since Benn, not only cost the Tories the 2010 election, cost them the 2015 election by splitting the right and economic incompetence but also got his timing wrong on the housing stimulus so it kicks in 2015-6 enabling a PM Miliband to call a snap election after the fops have their heads chopped off by the backbenchers following an indeterminate election result.
Even God took 7 days to create the universe and one of those was a bank holiday.
St George has been sent upon the earth to remedy the damage done to God's work by socialists.
He will succeed. He just needs time. In biblical terms '5 days' should be sufficient. And Tories don't need holidays. They complete the job, take the bonus and retire.
Comments
I am comforted by the similarity of our responses to Mr. Thomas, that we share a concern for the facts.
In 2015, St. George will indeed be focussing on the forward offer. Lovely, jubbly tax cuts bribes for us all to vote on.
As I suggested to another richard over the weekend these will be sold as a "demand side stimulus" to placate Ed Balls and the doubters in the IMF.
Presumably the females were back at the pond getting it on. Perhaps we'll see that in the follow-up video.
If you are anti-Europe - UKIP.
If you are Euro-sceptic and want to see a renegotiation of our position, Tory.
What pray-tell does a vote for Labour in a European election achieve, Nick ?
I can only assume they've applied some bizarre turnout filter for each election.
Leading questions or a flat out error seem more likely than those results actually being correct! I know Mike always says that a rogue poll is one we dont like the results of but I dont really have any skin in the game and it just looks odd to me.
You'd hope that looking at the data tables would help to unravel it.
Bank lending remains depressed and mortgage applications are still falling: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/other/monetary/trendsapril13.pdf
This is resulting in deleveraging as mortgages are paid off faster than new ones are being taken out. Given where we started this is not a bad thing in itself but the argument that a modest government scheme to encourage those struggling with a deposit is pumping up an out of control housing market is really ridiculous and bears no relation to reality.
Net 'right to know about Politician's private life':
Con: -12
Lab: +26
LibD: -12
UKIP: +30
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dkbrvuucr7/YG-Archive-public's-right-to-know-240513.pdf
Quoting from the executive summary:
"Mortgage approvals by all UK-resident mortgage
lenders for house purchase fell slightly in the three months to February."
This is not a housing boom. We get housing booms in this country because access to credit and mortgages have a mulitplier effect on real wage increases essentially capitalising them right now based on favourable future assumptions of both earnings and capital values. As I said in my earlier post when real wages start to rise this will have a very rapid effect on the housing market but we are not there yet and are unlikely to be before 2015.
tim
You know very well that the forecast increases in housing benefit payments do not reflect forecast housing price increases.
They result from government policy to narrow the gap between social housing and private sector rents. A policy which was also pursued by the previous Labour government.
The goal is to increase liquidity in the social housing market and to create conditions which encourage private sector supply of social housing through the provision of construction, ownership and property management services.
I don't know where your head is stuck but it certainly doesn't appear to be in sand.
HB was on a strong upward path in 2010 and the steps that the government have taken to restrict it have only slowed down the rate of growth. There is an unmet need for new housing in this country in both the rented and owned sector. Until that need is met there will be some upward pressure but this was grossly exaggerated under the last government by their willingness to pay top dollar in HB for those who were not paying their own rent.
The reforms of this government have (a) required the HB to be in a middle band of rents instead of the top; (b) capped the maximum that can be paid; (c) charged those renting larger properties than they need for the additional bedrooms; and (d) sought to restrict the availability of HB at the margins. All of these were correct policies (if insufficient) and all were inevitably opposed by Labour.
In reality the voters won't be voting mainly on EU constitutional issues in the Euro elections. This will be inadvertently sensible, as they're mainly decided by the member states, not the parliament.
I have friends who have made serious money off the public purse in this way. Sadly they are the same ones as will go on and on about how benefits should be cut not recognising that their fortunes have been built on such misguided largesse of the state. They are in fact greater and more successful benefit junkies than the people they moan about who are genuinely poor and in need.
We’ve had a Euro poll from ComRes which has been commissioned by the Green Party – who come out rather well. The shares are – CON 24%: LAB 22%: LDEM 14%, UKIP 17%: Green 15%: BNP 2%. The poll was not past vote weighted which generally means that the sample would not have been politically balanced and skewed quite considerably towards Labour. It is for this reason that I’m not attaching much importance to it.
This is the sort of polling that they had at the 1992 general election
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/06/02/marfs-view-of-the-day/
ComRes interviewed 2,003 GB adults online between 22nd and 24th May 2013. Data were weighted to be representative British adults aged 18+. Data were also politically weighted to past vote recall.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Open_Europe-ComRes_poll.pdf
The government's current Help to Buy scheme excludes Buy to Let purchasers. Eligibility terms are as follows:
The scheme is designed to help creditworthy households struggling to save for the high mortgage deposits required by lenders in the current environment. For this reason, a mortgage eligible for a guarantee under the scheme will need to:
• be a residential mortgage, and not buy-to-let;
• be taken out by an individual or individuals rather than an incorporated company;
• be on a property in the UK with purchase value of £600,000 or less;
• have a loan-to-value of between 80 per cent and 95 per cent;
• be originated between the dates specified by the scheme;
• be a repayment mortgage, and not interest-only; and
• meet certain minimum requirements in terms of the assessment of the borrower’s ability to pay the mortgage, for example a loan-to-income and credit score test.
This doesn't mean to say that property companies undertaking a residential property ownership and rental business will not qualify for funds under the broader Funding for Lending schemes operated by the BoE on behalf of the Treasury. FLS is after all open to all legitimate enterprises and it would be very odd of a government to exclude property companies.
Presumably we'll eventually get the full thing from ComRes, free of Open Europe's various schemes and shenanigans?
Back home for a Bank-holiday and I read that terrorism was unlikely to effect my life (despite a very near thing in South Quays almost twenty years ago). So what happens when I watch Al-Beeb "News"*...?
Lo-and-behold the anti-terrorist plods have raided a place in Hither-Green**. Looking at the pictures I recognise my London home.
So Gaijin, please engage brain-before-posting. Junior-moderator or not your life is nowhere near the pulse of Europe, let alone Sarf Luhn-dahn.
* About 03:35 BST.
** http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2013/05/house-in-hither-green-searched-in-drummer-lee-rigby-murder-inquiry/
:muppet-watch:
Obviously the number of people who have somehow crossed paths with the terrorists - met them, lived in a street where they lived, known someone who knew them, been in the same town as the attack on the day it happened etc - will be quite large. Luckily seeing your London home in a picture hardly ever results in a fatality, or even an injury.
You have to look at the total costs to the taxpayer of housing provision and not simply one element of cost such as rent or linked housing benefit.
The taxpayer "takes a huge whack" if the government (both central and local) owns residential property assets which yield below market returns. The whack in this case is taken in lower market prices for the assets, which are depressed by the lower rental yields and the consequent lack of liquidity in the property sales market.
Increase the rental yields to market rates and then governments strengthen their balance sheets (property asset values increase) and they become able to sell the properties to private sector property companies thereby raising financial resources to invest elsewhere.
The cost-benefit comes from weighing up the benefits to the capital accounts against the increased expenses of paying higher housing benefits. There is also the political benefit of being able to shift the financing of social housing to the private sector thereby relieving the taxpayer of being the sole provider to the market.
Enjoy the soggy comfort blanket of Ed's MORI Leader ratings while it lasts.
The FLS schemes no more discriminate in favour of property companies than they do other commercial or manufacturing enterprise.
A company involved in publishing data on intellectual property is just as eligible for FLS finance as a company specialising in the provision of residential rental property.
FLS is designed to increase the supply of credit to the economy as a whole.
EiT responded in an adult-manner. Keep dragging your knuckles over your keyboard: With a one-in-five-hundred hit-rate we will next read something interesting from you - pfft- about five-thirty-three pm, Friday 31st March 2013 (BST)...?
:get-your-fifty-pound-ready-as-you-seem-to-have-lost-[PSBR]:
St George has been sent upon the earth to remedy the damage done to God's work by socialists.
He will succeed. He just needs time. In biblical terms '5 days' should be sufficient. And Tories don't need holidays. They complete the job, take the bonus and retire.