I think the PB Tories need some relief from trying to defend Gove armed with the shield of emptiness and the sword of blind faith, so off you go, BANG ON ABOUT EUROPE
You mean our membership costs us £18bn pounds per year?
The Left may find it hard to comprehend that the state cannot forever underwrite unsustainable benefits, but more and more of today’s young people do not
From the article -
Research carried out by Ipsos MORI into the attitudes of the so-called Generation Y group of people born after 1980 has shattered the assumptions of the progressive Left. It found that support for the Conservatives among this group has doubled at a time of austerity and public-sector reform. The findings have caused bewilderment among Labour cheerleaders, not least the growing acceptance among 20- and 30-somethings that they need to be much more self-reliant and should not expect the state always to be there to look after them. Researchers believe that Conservative messages about individual responsibility and a tougher line on welfare are resonating strongly.
And the article finishes with -
Dealing with these new realities is the biggest challenge in modern British politics, and it is one that the Conservatives are better placed than Labour to confront – ironically, by adopting many of the public service reforms once espoused by the Blairites. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, looks like a man with nowhere to go.
Will tim break 5000 posts by midnight? A nation holds its breath.
It's Friday night and as ever, tim is sloshed (presumably an indifferent red) and all's well with the world.
I don't think tim could ever be accused of being indifferent.
Indeed not. And, on reflection, not red either as he is a far more right wing reactionary than I coiuld ever aspire to be, what with cutting all welfare benefits in real terms. Loathsome middle class elitist.
@ProfessorDavey So you were in fact being disingenuous. The general obligation to provide education to meet the needs of the population and the obligation to provide sufficient schools for those needs falls on local authorities, not on the Secretary of State (sections 13-14 of the Education Act 1996, as amended). What you meant was that there might be deleterious political consequences for the Secretary of State were local authorities to default in respect of their obligations.
Nope section 11 sets out the duty of the secretary of state over and above those 'bodies in receipt of public funds', i.e. local authorities. Consequences of failure to comply with statutory duties do not only rest with the local authorities.
I come back from dinner and a glass of wine, and to my horror, the learned Professor is once again being disingenuous. I suggest that he actually reads section 11 of the Education Act 1996, and he will at once realise that it in no way alters the argument that I made. The provision is produced below (as in force) for those lacking access to it:
'11.— Duty in the case of primary, secondary and further education. (1) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds which— (a) carry responsibility for securing that the required provision for primary, secondary or further education is made— (i) in schools, (ii) in institutions within the further education sector, or (iii) in 16 to 19 Academies, in or in any area of England or Wales, or (b) conduct schools, institutions within the further education sector or 16 to 19 Academies in England and Wales, for the purpose of promoting primary, secondary and further education in England and Wales. (2) The Secretary of State shall, in the case of his powers to regulate the provision made in schools , institutions within the further education sector and 16 to 19 Academies in England and Wales, exercise his powers with a view to (among other things) improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice.'
That provision imposes no duty on the Secretary of State to secure an adequate number of school places. That obligation rests (as you admit) on local authorities.
'FPT - Labour is considering backing an in-out referendum on Europe as early as its autumn party conference.'
Only a few weeks ago we had Red's 'read my lips'no EU referendum at PMQ's,now another u-turn.
Not much left to u-turn on,what's the point of Labour?
The only thing ed can do to make it not look like a U-turn or he's following the tory tune on about every policy ;-) is to bring it before the 2015 GE.
He can't perform any worse than 2011 though can he?
'Can't perform any worse' should never be used in connection with SLABbers. Tbf Gray is by no means the worst of the SLAB 'big beasts', which should tell you all you need to know.
Presumably there comes a point with barrel scraping when all you've got are splinters and fresh air.
The key part of that article is Macintosh's parting shot after Lamont finally got rid of her former rival for the SLAB leadership.
"Whatever disagreements we may have on the direction the party is headed, I still have huge admiration for Johann and particularly welcome her new cabinet appointments."
As if bringing back Gray wasn't a big enough signal that Lamont was going to double down on the negativity and try to rerun the 2011 campaign. Whenever Brown or Darling or little Ed let her that is.
Lest we forget what Macintosh said of SLAB's 2011 triumph.
He described the 2011 Holyrood election result as a "disaster", and that the party had been too negative and if it did not change it "will consign ourselves to steady decline and years of opposition. We need to unite as a party and to start talking positively about our values, what Labour stands for and not just what we are against."
So you add that to little Ed's desperate tory triangulation and Lamont nodding it all through obediently (when some were far from happy about that in SLAB) and we're going to have a wee bit of a stooshie soon enough.
He can't perform any worse than 2011 though can he?
'Can't perform any worse' should never be used in connection with SLABbers. Tbf Gray is by no means the worst of the SLAB 'big beasts', which should tell you all you need to know.
All we need now is Tom Harris and "no-brainer" McTernan and we've got ourselves a hoedown.
The key part of that article is Macintosh's parting shot after Lamont finally got rid of her former rival for the SLAB leadership.
Could never work out whether MacIntosh's unconvincing attempts at following the party line were due to outbreaks of principle or just down to being a bit crap.
Cameron demands inquiry over 'unacceptable' jet ski shooting incident
David Cameron has demanded an inquiry into the "totally unacceptable" incident in which a Spanish patrol boat took potshots at a British jet skier off the coast of Gibraltar.
The key part of that article is Macintosh's parting shot after Lamont finally got rid of her former rival for the SLAB leadership.
Could never work out whether MacIntosh's unconvincing attempts at following the party line were due to outbreaks of principle or just down to being a bit crap.
Bit from column A, bit from column B. Crap is of course a highly relative term considering SLAB made Lamont leader. Though IIRC that was mainly on the union vote and I think Macintosh would have won if it was just the members and PLP. Little Ed may have had a hand in the union vote swinging behind her which might help explain her obedience. Little Ed also certainly didn't help Macintosh by so publicly forgetting his name.
McIntosh won Members. Lamont won Union section (actually Affiliated but Unions are the biggest affiliates. I doubt Scottish Gay Labour, Scottish Scientists for Labour or whatever else is affiliated have many members) and MPs/MSPs. Harris was third everywhere In the Deputy contest, Boy Sarwar won MPs, MSPs, Members while Davidson won in the Union section
Bit from column A, bit from column B. Crap is of course a highly relative term considering SLAB made Lamont leader. Though IIRC that was mainly on the union vote and I think Macintosh would have won if it was just the members and PLP. Little Ed may have had a hand in the uniion vote swinging behind her which might explain her obedience. He certainly didn't help Macintosh by forgetting his name.
Liberal Democrats who fail to back a Bill to give voters a referendum on European Union membership will be undermining democracy, David Cameron has suggested.
@tim,some tasty stories for you on front of telegraph ;-)
Whats the "end of the Thatcher property revolution" thing, can't read it.
A generation locked out by housing bubble Osborne by any chance?
This article on the Telegraph site isn't bylined with Brogan but covers the same ground:
The Office for National Statistics said the number of 25 to 34-year-olds who own their home has fallen from two million to 1.3 million in a decade.
Only 40 per cent of young adults own their own home compared with 58 per cent in 2001.
The figures illustrate for the first time the sharp decline in home ownership among young people since Mrs Thatcher’s home ownership drive of the Seventies and Eighties.
The number of young people renting has risen sharply from 1.5 million to two million over the same period as high property prices and low wages lock young people out of the housing market.
The figures, based on England and Wales census data, also show that the number of people renting homes in 2011 was more than 8.3 million — the highest since 1961.
Experts said the data showed that Mrs Thatcher’s dream of a property-owning democracy was now a “relic”, and that it could take years for young professionals to be able to afford to leave the family home.
McIntosh won Members. Lamont won Union section (actually Affiliated but Unions are the biggest affiliates. I doubt Scottish Gay Labour, Scottish Scientists for Labour or whatever else is affiliated have many members) and MPs/MSPs. Harris was third everywhere In the Deputy contest, Boy Sarwar won MPs, MSPs, Members while Davidson won in the Union section
Indeed but Lamont won the union vote by a fairly hefty margin and after little Ed forgot Ken's name at conference that hardly did him any favours.
Let's just say I doubt all is sweetness and light in SLAB right now after that reshuffle.
FPT Required reading for Gove worshippers (when's your holy day btw, a day without sport?)
tim said: » show previous quotes The Department does not know whether it is achieving value for money with the funding it provides to deliver new school places. The Department believes that local authorities will be able to deliver the 256,000 places required by September 2014 with the £5 billion of public money it is now providing. However, it does not yet understand how authorities are delivering these places, the costs to local authorities, the legitimate variation of costs between authorities or the relative value for money of authorities’ different approaches. The Department intends to collect new information from authorities on where places are being delivered and the costs of delivery in June 2013, but has not yet determined how this information will be used.
The Department’s assumption about local authorities’ contribution to the cost of delivering school places was made without robust evidence and without proper regard being given to the reduction in local authority spending. Local authorities have been using funding from other programmes to meet demand for school places, despite the Department’s view that its funding is now sufficient to cover the costs of delivery. The Department’s assumed contribution was a broad, national estimate and did not take account of local factors that might lead to individual authorities contributing more or less than the national estimate. In 2012-13, 64% of authorities were drawing on maintenance funding to pay for extra school places, storing up unknown maintenance costs for the future. In addition, the Department has not considered wider pressures on local authorities resulting from reduced budgets in its assumptions. The Department should develop more realistic assumptions about the level of financial contribution authorities can be expected to make to delivering school places, which take account of the wider financial challenges authorities face.
Local authorities can direct maintained schools to expand or close, depending on fluctuations in demand, but do not have this power over academies or free schools. Local authorities cannot create new schools that are not academies or free schools although authorities may encourage bids for creating free schools in their areas.
That's not a Messiah, thats a f*cking shambles.
Professor Davey said
Absolutely - if you read the whole report the overall conclusion is of a government who really had no grip whatsoever on this impending timebomb and have finally, at the 11th hour woken up. So they say that the latest announcements (in March this year) are only now beginning to give 'relatively more funding to areas projecting the greatest pressure on places' - so prior to that pressure on places seemed to be an irrelevance for funding decisions.
What on earth has Gove been doing for the last three years if it takes until March 2013 to wake up to the fact that you might just want to target your funding for investment in areas that actually need them.
Absolute shambles.
Gove has been busy writing letters to Stephen Twigg. You can't expect him to focus on something as trivial as school places.
Ian Gray takes the Finance briefing replacing Ken McIntosh who returns to the backbenches. Kezia Dugdale is promoted to Education replacing Hugh Henry. Jackie Baillie goes from Health to Social justice, equalities and welfare. She will also be in charge of the party manifesto. Health goes to left wing MSP Neil Findlay. Graeme Pearson is promoted to Justice Chief Whip James Kelly moves to Infrastructure and capital investment replacing Richard Baker. Lewis McDonald becomes Chief Whip.
Jenny Marra becomes Gray's deputy and spokeswoman for youth employment. Drew Smith becomes Constitution spokesman. Richard Baker takes a "wider policy review role" whatever it means
Dugdale, Pearson, Findlay, Marra and Smith are from 2011 intake.
End of the Thatcher property revolution A generation of young families in rented properties could turn away from the Conservative Party, experts warned tonight, after new home ownership figures signalled the end of Margaret Thatcher’s housing legacy.
What a sad country we're becoming, scared of building, scared of immigration.
And NIMBYLabour, having failed so dismally on house-building 1997-2010 (which to be fair you have acknowledged) isn't going to do much better should it win in 2015, is it? We have Benn's veto commitment and Ed's ludicrous and self-defeating nonsense about withdrawing extant permissions and that's about it. You should be ashamed of and embarrassed by your party.
And no chance either of drug de-criminalisation, is there?
End of the Thatcher property revolution A generation of young families in rented properties could turn away from the Conservative Party, experts warned tonight, after new home ownership figures signalled the end of Margaret Thatcher’s housing legacy.
What a sad country we're becoming, scared of building, scared of immigration.
There is nothing wrong with the current housebuilding statistics which are at a level which is consistent with the recovery of the economy,
seasonally adjusted [house building] starts are now 62% above the trough in the March quarter 2009 but 44% below the March quarter 2007 peak; completions are 49% below their March quarter 2007 peak [DCLG]
The facts on school places seem to be as follows. It is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide an adequate number of school places for the population of the country. That responsibility falls on local authorities in England. The Secretary of State has the extraordinary power, when local authorities are demonstrated to be in default of their obligations, to intervene and to direct local authorities and governing bodies to act in such a way that they cease to be in default of their obligations. The power is extraordinary, and vitiates the general aim that maintained schools should be managed by local authorities. Now, unless people believe that the Secretary of State should adopt an (unlawful) policy of anticipating that every local authority in the country will default in respect of their obligations, it is not for the Secretary of State to adopt a policy of central planning in relation to school places, unless and until Parliament changes the law.
SLAB reshuffle... Health goes to left wing MSP Neil Findlay.
I hope once Neil F. has finished the Baillie hospital blanket count that he can carry on with his full tax powers and wealth re-distribution agenda. I'm sure it'll be welcomed in Lamont land.
'Meanwhile, Mr Findlay called for the Scottish Parliament to be handed full income tax powers to allow MSPs to increase taxes on the wealthy. He said: “If we don’t have public services funded by taxation than we would start to see the break up of society. “Public services are a civilising force and powers over personal taxation to generate finance for these services would be a positive move. “I’m not afraid to say that I believe in redistribution.”'
@tim - A thoughtful post. And might it ever be possible in our adversarial system for housing policy to be taken out of the partisan areana and a measured realistic debate about what is feasible yet electorally acceptable. More New Towns (which you have advocated consistently) is indeed one potentially attractive option though the timescale for their implenation is surely at least 10 years?
But Labour as a party is simply not upto that kind of longer-term thinking (shame on them) and the Tories aren't going to be politically altruistic. So we all just stagger on.
And you know and I know that housing will never be centre-stage at election time. Look at MORI and YouGov for its salience as an issue.
There is nothing wrong with the current housebuilding statistics which are at a level which is consistent with the recovery of the economy
I assume that's understated satire?
Prices are already back above pre crash peak in many areas and the average is 6.74 times average pay levels. When we built in the 30's house prices were 2.5 times pay. Similar in the 50's and Churchill/Macmillan built in the rented sector A whole generation is being locked out of the market while a Tory chancellor endorses the lock out with state subsidised house price inflation.
Let's take this nonsense step by step.
House Prices
Only in London have house prices recovered to peak levels prevailing in 2007:
End of the Thatcher property revolution A generation of young families in rented properties could turn away from the Conservative Party, experts warned tonight, after new home ownership figures signalled the end of Margaret Thatcher’s housing legacy.
What a sad country we're becoming, scared of building, scared of immigration.
And NIMBYLabour, having failed so dismally on house-building 1997-2010 (as to be fair you have acknowledged) isn't going to do much better should it win in 2015, is it? We have Benn's veto commitment and Ed's ludicrous and self-defeating nonsense about withdrawing extant permissions and that's about it. You should be ashamed of and embarrassed by your party.
And no chance either of drug de-criminalisation, is there?
Why do you bother?
No chance of drug decriminalisation sadly, no. But I think there is a chance we may finally get an election where housing is central, and the Tories have placed themselves on the wrong side of the generational chasm on housing.
Will the British people fall for another housing bubble, this time funded by taxpayers money? Finally lets have a proper debate about it. Thatcher ran on opposing the British disease, addiction to house price inflation and opposition to building is the British disease all parties have ignored for forty years.
I think you underestimate the number and persistance of the NIMBYs in Britain. I see Nick Boles got heckled by the countryside campaigners again:
I know a fair few boomers and they are pretty much all NIMBYs opposed to even the principle of building houses let alone any that are proposed to be built near them.
Ask them whether they would choose to prevent building even if it means the younger generations are priced out of owning a decent home forever and they will happily say yes.
@tim One of the central reasons why there has not been a sufficiently large reduction in house prices from the mad levels they reached under the last government is that their is a political consensus that monetary policy should be used to keep house prices high. It will be very difficult to make housing more affordable until monetary policy changes. That, of course, isn't a justification for not building (or more accurately, allowing to be built) houses on a large scale, which is justified in and of itself. Unfortunately, there is little to indicate that any major party is prepared to take the "difficult decisions" needed to lance this boil in the foreseeable future. They are all charlatans.
End of the Thatcher property revolution A generation of young families in rented properties could turn away from the Conservative Party, experts warned tonight, after new home ownership figures signalled the end of Margaret Thatcher’s housing legacy.
What a sad country we're becoming, scared of building, scared of immigration.
And NIMBYLabour, having failed so dismally on house-building 1997-2010 (as to be fair you have acknowledged) isn't going to do much better should it win in 2015, is it? We have Benn's veto commitment and Ed's ludicrous and self-defeating nonsense about withdrawing extant permissions and that's about it. You should be ashamed of and embarrassed by your party.
And no chance either of drug de-criminalisation, is there?
Why do you bother?
No chance of drug decriminalisation sadly, no. But I think there is a chance we may finally get an election where housing is central, and the Tories have placed themselves on the wrong side of the generational chasm on housing.
Will the British people fall for another housing bubble, this time funded by taxpayers money? Finally lets have a proper debate about it. Thatcher ran on opposing the British disease, addiction to house price inflation and opposition to building is the British disease all parties have ignored for forty years.
I think you underestimate the number and persistance of the NIMBYs in Britain. I see Nick Boles got heckled by the countryside campaigners again:
I know a fair few boomers and they are pretty much all NIMBYs opposed to even the principle of building houses let alone any that are proposed to be built near them.
Ask them whether they would choose to prevent building even if it means the younger generations are priced out of owning a decent home forever and they will happily say yes.
That's one of many reasons why we are going to have to build new towns,and make sure the towns we build don't give a veto over new housing to the last person who bought a new house. Put new planning regulations into new towns and kill NIMBYism by statute
But where though? Unfortunately the NIMBYs don't want new towns built either:
The boomers really don't want the view from their many windows spoiled by younger people's housing. And let's be honest the old hold all the power in politics in Britain.
Lord Ashcroft asking 'If you or anyone else has any interesting ideas for what to poll or research happy to listen.' in response to Mike Fabricant.
Hey Carola,
You put some interesting links on Free School funding up on the last thread.
Just wanted to check I was reading it right.
The 87 schools for which details were provided got, in aggregate, £20m in additional pre-opening funding (above the normal per-pupil funding) to fund all the preparation cost plus a further £40m in start up costs (buying books & equipment etc).
Is that the sum total of this *massive* secret funding scandal that tim's been boring us all to tears about?
There is nothing wrong with the current housebuilding statistics which are at a level which is consistent with the recovery of the economy
I assume that's understated satire?
Prices are already back above pre crash peak in many areas and the average is 6.74 times average pay levels. When we built in the 30's house prices were 2.5 times pay. Similar in the 50's and Churchill/Macmillan built in the rented sector A whole generation is being locked out of the market while a Tory chancellor endorses the lock out with state subsidised house price inflation.
Ratio of house price values to income
The current stock of mortgaged housing is valued at £1.8 trillion with loans outstanding of £1.2 trillion, a 66% Loan to Value ratio for all loans of all maturity.
Most lenders are reluctant to lend at greater than 75% LTV for new mortgages partly due to the risk of catastrophic falls in housing values. (Also due to the increased regulatory capital requirements for higher risk mortgage books).
The banking system and therefore the whole UK economy depends on the property assets held to secure mortgage lending to be at least stable in value.
The economic shock of allowing housing values to fall to 1930s value to income ratios would destroy the UK economy.
If house prices fall substantially then banks won't lend and construction companies won't build. Exactly what happened after the Brown noughties bubble burst.
The only option for any chancellor regardless of party is to return the housing market to liquidity and normal functioning and over a very long term allow house price inflation to grow less than income. The timespan needed to redress such imbalances needs to be measured in decades not years.
Housing construction also needs stimulating but it can only grow in line with demand. Simply constructing hundreds of thousands of properties when there is no demand will result in similar economic crashes to those experienced in Spain and Ireland (and probably soon China).
And the economics of housing construction apply as much to governments as they do to the private sector. Borrowing to construct large amounts of social housing when the private sector market remains illiquid and stagnant would result in unsustainable taxpayer losses.
Given this environment just what would you recommend Osborne does to solve the problems of the housing market?
The facts on school places seem to be as follows. It is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide an adequate number of school places for the population of the country.
How did Prof Dave's Restrospective Labour Spending View work out? How many Primary School places were to have been created under Labour's plan, how many would have survived the 50% cut they also planned? Did we get numbers - or just empty rhetoric?
Lord Ashcroft asking 'If you or anyone else has any interesting ideas for what to poll or research happy to listen.' in response to Mike Fabricant.
Hey Carola,
You put some interesting links on Free School funding up on the last thread.
Just wanted to check I was reading it right.
The 87 schools for which details were provided got, in aggregate, £20m in additional pre-opening funding (above the normal per-pupil funding) to fund all the preparation cost plus a further £40m in start up costs (buying books & equipment etc).
Is that the sum total of this *massive* secret funding scandal that tim's been boring us all to tears about?
err no, the tiny Free School with 17 staff and 48 pupils that's in special measures got £6k per pupil in additional funding (not capital funding), but that excludes the staff costs. How much do you think each child's poor education is costing in that school? No one knows, Gove will not release the figures.
I seem to remember reading that the same school had £2.5 million capital funding, so that's £60k per pupil before staff wages if the figure is true.
Please provide a link. Carola's post seemed pretty comprehensive.
They receive the per-pupil funding, plus the pupil-premium (as appropriate) plus the information released - £60m between 87 schools, so about £750K extra per school.
These are the footnotes explaining the categories:
Note 1 - Pre-Opening Expenditure: The Department provides a project development grant to help Trusts cover costs in the run up to opening a free school. The funding is designed to enable Trusts to cover everything they will need to buy up to the point at which the school opens. The Department expects all expenditure to be essential to the project and be based on what represents the best value for money for the school. The grant can be used for the cost of any project management support for education services and for other costs. All schools – not just free schools – will receive pre-opening funding. For example the funding provided to free schools is similar to that provided to new opening sponsored Academies and less than that provided to sponsored academies between 2007 and 2009, Ashcroft Technology Academy, Wandsworth received £501,912, The Bridge Academy, Hackney received £544,686, Darwen Aldridge Community Academy, Blackburn with Darwen received £562,783 and The St Lawrence Academy, North Lincolnshire received £576,969. For maintained schools separate funding figures are not available but these will often be planned over a longer period and the school would have direct support from council officers in relation to issues such as pupil recruitment, project management and staff recruitment and the local authority would cover the costs of employing a headteacher in the run up to the opening of the school.
Note 2 - Post-Opening Expenditure: A number of free schools which opened have received start-up funding in addition to their per-pupil funding. Start-up funding is not usually paid to existing independent schools becoming free schools unless there are exceptional circumstances. The funding is designed to enable schools to cover essential initial costs, such as buying books and equipment; and to meet the costs arising as the school builds up its pupil numbers over time - as they could not otherwise meet the full cost of a headteacher and other senior staff from the per pupil funding initially received. This funding is essential to meet the additional costs associated with starting a brand new school. Similar support has always been provided to new Academies, for example: the King Solomon Academy, the Brent Academy, the Wren Academy, and The City Academy, Hackney (opened 2007-09) all received between £634,000 and £1,374,820 of start-up funding during their first year of opening.
The 600,000 cap on mortgages eligible for government interventionary assistance rules out all but low value property in London.
Nonsense, theres only half a dozen boroughs where the average house price is above £600,000.
And your stats show the SE at 2007 peak, East not far below, and this is after six years of falling real wages, and that's before the taxpayer inflation subsidies kick in.
The drop in house prices that was needed to make them affordable never happened, it's what, 10% across the regions, from ridiculous levels that were distorting the economy and pumping up housing benefit payments. The latter have been rising for decades, the British disease ensures wages fall but house prices rise while benefits spiral.
I have made an intervening post which advances the general argument so only a single point here.
The house price index returning to 2007 levels does not mean that house prices have kept pace with inflation. It means that they have returned to 2007 values in 2002 prices.
The Index for UK property in 2007 was 184.4. If CPI is applied to that (17.38% increase) then the Index would rise to 216.4 in 2013. If the actual House Price index for 2013 is below 216.4 then the property owner would have suffered a loss in real terms.
So simply saying that house prices have recovered their peak 2007 values does not take into account inflation.
It's actually a good idea - Guernsey moved to it 5 years ago and cut consumption of plastic bags significantly. England will catch up eventually (tho M&S already charge in the food hall).
Most of your housing theories essentially see the housing market as a protection racket run by the banks. but on a couple of issues
Housing construction also needs stimulating but it can only grow in line with demand. Simply constructing hundreds of thousands of properties when there is no demand will result in similar economic crashes to those experienced in Spain and Ireland
We haven't built enough houses to cope with demand for forty years.
And the economics of housing construction apply as much to governments as they do to the private sector. Borrowing to construct large amounts of social housing when the private sector market remains illiquid and stagnant would result in unsustainable taxpayer losses.
Councils and pension funds can build houses for long term rent and show a profit.
Given this environment just what would you recommend Osborne does to solve the problems of the housing market?
Stop making it worse by pumping taxpayers money into demand and use the same money to incentivise building across the sector, particularly in the social housebuilding sector which will drive down housing benefit payments.
It is not simply "demand" that counts, tim. What counts is demand from potential purchasers who are able and willing to pay an economic price for the property.
And that economic price needs to be sufficient to provide construction companies with a reasonable profit for building the property. A reasonable profit being one that provides a return on capital employed which is broadly competitive with alternative opportunities for investing the same capital.
You seem to be suggesting that councils and pension funds can invest capital in social housing build at lower than competitive returns in order to realise a social good (more people housed at lower rents). This is simply a subsidy of social housing tenants by pensioners and council tax payers.
Central or local governments borrowing money to build social housing which doesn't lead to competitive returns is as much a sin as allowing house prices in the private sector to grow faster and further than general inflation.
A hidden bubble is as much a bubble as a visible one.
It's actually a good idea - Guernsey moved to it 5 years ago and cut consumption of plastic bags significantly
I guess it depends how you measure consumption. We use carrier bags as rubbish bags afterwards, so we'll keep buying them in the shop every time we go until they become more expensive than pedal-bin bags. Then we'll switch to buying those, and carrier bag consumption will "fall".
The Conservatives have already set the agenda on the issue of an In/Out EU Referendum, we are having one, and preferable after we have re-negotiated some key powers back to Westminster..... or not. And we even have a sensible time table pencilled into the diary too. The ball is now in the EU's court.
And yet Ed Miliband and the Shadow Labour Cabinet are still prevaricating about what their position is going to be on this one. I am just surprised they managed to set themselves that many silly elephant traps to immediately fall into in one round of briefing of their perceived options. In other words, Ed Miliband & Co still haven't got a clue what their preferred option is with the Euro's looming up next year.
The threat of backing an early Referendum has the distinct whiff of the same silly partisan politics that led Brown, Miliband & Balls into that Autumn GE that never was trap. That is, they fell into the very trap they tried to set for Cameron and the Conservatives. So no surprise that the fall guy Dougie Alexander on that occasion is less than keen. I know that there is an inherent desire to try to fill the current Labour policy vacuum with briefings of yet undecided issues. But this kind of loose chatter can lead to a danger of others filling in your policies for you.
I particularly like the idea of Ed Miliband demanding an early EU Referendum at the Labour Conference gaining legs and running away with itself in the hope of causing divisions within the Tory party. Miliband might not want to give Cameron a similar platform at his own Conference to utter the words yet again, 'bring it on if you think your hard enough'. So we could yet see Labour march their troops up to the top of the hill on the back of a media driven band wagon, only for them to be forced to back off at the last minute on the issue of an early Referendum. The media would have a field day if Ed Miliband is caught playing this game, especially if has to back down even before he had fought a GE campaign in much the same way Brown did.
But here is hoping that the temptation to try to divert the focus away from a recovering economy and Labour's internal policy divisions proving too much for the two Ed's in the run up to the Euro Elections.
So say Labour did offer to support a 2014 in/out referendum. Are we sure the government would kill it, or is there a chance they'd just say, "sod it, let's get it over with"? And if the latter, would Labour furiously back-pedal, or would it actually happen?
So say Labour did offer to support a 2014 in/out referendum. Are we sure the government would kill it, or is there a chance they'd just say, "sod it, let's get it over with"? And if the latter, would Labour furiously back-pedal, or would it actually happen?
It would be the 2007 Autumn GE that never was all over again, and I reckon that Cameron would say again, bring it on. And there lies the biggest danger for the Labour party, it would once again see them lined up on the wrong side of the EU dividing line. Backing our membership of the EU as it is now without any renegotiation of powers or reforms, just as Cameron is once again standing up for British interests in the EU. The Tories should donate some extra shovels to their Labour opponents to help them keep digging.
So say Labour did offer to support a 2014 in/out referendum. Are we sure the government would kill it, or is there a chance they'd just say, "sod it, let's get it over with"? And if the latter, would Labour furiously back-pedal, or would it actually happen?
It would be the 2007 Autumn GE that never was all over again, and I reckon that Cameron would say again, bring it on. And there lies the biggest danger for the Labour party, it would once again see them lined up on the wrong side of the EU dividing line. Backing our membership of the EU as it is now without any renegotiation of powers or reforms, just as Cameron is once again standing up for British interests in the EU. The Tories should donate some extra shovels to their Labour opponents to help them keep digging.
If Cameron says "bring it on" he can't simultaneously say there needs to be a renegotiation first and attack Labour for undermining that, unless he's going to advocate having two referendums, one in 2014 and another in 2017.
So the downsides for Labour are: a) Cameron says "bring it on", there's a referendum, it helps Cameron with his UKIP problem and may result in leaving the EU. b) Cameron stands firm, Labour have to explain whether they support a referendum after 2015: 1) No looks weird after they advocated one now. The line would be that they wanted to remove the uncertainty, but that implies they're not confident of winning the election, which is an opposition taboo. 2) Means they argument is about whether they'd do the same renegotiation as Cameron. No lets Cameron keep the skeptic vote and reduces the value of the whole exercise. Yes puts them on the same hook as Cameron, over-promising the result of a probably non-existent treaty in a way that is bound to disappoint.
I can see the attraction of the move, but it's probably too clever by half. They're better doing what they're doing now, letting the Tories scratch each other's eyes out while Labour talk about jobs.
"I can see the attraction of the move, but it's probably too clever by half. They're better doing what they're doing now, letting the Tories scratch each other's eyes out while Labour talk about jobs."
@edmundintokyo Labour would be repeating the mistakes of the over ramping of the Autumn GE that never was. Right now, its Labour that are having this internal discussion on the EU rather than talking about jobs or any other credible policies involving the economy. Lets not forget that Brown&Co were ramping up this snap GE against the back drop of the growing signs we were about to be engulfed in the banking crisis. The Tories are no longer scratching each others eyes out over the issue of the EU, as shown by the way the party has now got behind Conservative MP James Wharton's private members bill.
Comments
http://tinyurl.com/pokuqns
(apologies, the subbing on that Herald piece is atrocious)
Presumably there comes a point with barrel scraping when all you've got are splinters and fresh air.
Does that mean he's going to partake in a bigger role with Better Together?
SLAB wants Scotland to be independent don't they?
The Left may find it hard to comprehend that the state cannot forever underwrite unsustainable benefits, but more and more of today’s young people do not
From the article -
Research carried out by Ipsos MORI into the attitudes of the so-called Generation Y group of people born after 1980 has shattered the assumptions of the progressive Left. It found that support for the Conservatives among this group has doubled at a time of austerity and public-sector reform. The findings have caused bewilderment among Labour cheerleaders, not least the growing acceptance among 20- and 30-somethings that they need to be much more self-reliant and should not expect the state always to be there to look after them. Researchers believe that Conservative messages about individual responsibility and a tougher line on welfare are resonating strongly.
And the article finishes with -
Dealing with these new realities is the biggest challenge in modern British politics, and it is one that the Conservatives are better placed than Labour to confront – ironically, by adopting many of the public service reforms once espoused by the Blairites. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, looks like a man with nowhere to go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10148576/A-brave-new-world-for-Generation-Y.html
PBTories and kippers go on about "immigrants". Yet they are quick to celebrate "our" Laura.
Laura is , of course, British just like any other person who is now British or will , in future, become British but born elsewhere
Huzzah for the double British triumph today. Not unlike Charlie Sheen, Britain is bi-winning.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that Yes or No, SLAB (Holyrood division) are just unwitting participants in the narrative.
'FPT - Labour is considering backing an in-out referendum on Europe as early as its autumn party conference.'
Only a few weeks ago we had Red's 'read my lips'no EU referendum at PMQ's,now another u-turn.
Not much left to u-turn on,what's the point of Labour?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23107303
:
Will tim break 5000 posts by midnight?
No,just more wind.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/i-need-to-lock-and-load-david-cameron-hits-out-at-brussels-ambush/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=i-need-to-lock-and-load-david-cameron-hits-out-at-brussels-ambush
Tbf Gray is by no means the worst of the SLAB 'big beasts', which should tell you all you need to know.
"Whatever disagreements we may have on the direction the party is headed, I still have huge admiration for Johann and particularly welcome her new cabinet appointments."
As if bringing back Gray wasn't a big enough signal that Lamont was going to double down on the negativity and try to rerun the 2011 campaign. Whenever Brown or Darling or little Ed let her that is.
Lest we forget what Macintosh said of SLAB's 2011 triumph.
He described the 2011 Holyrood election result as a "disaster", and that the party had been too negative and if it did not change it "will consign ourselves to steady decline and years of opposition. We need to unite as a party and to start talking positively about our values, what Labour stands for and not just what we are against."
So you add that to little Ed's desperate tory triangulation and Lamont nodding it all through obediently (when some were far from happy about that in SLAB) and we're going to have a wee bit of a stooshie soon enough.
And big ed's policy on this is ?
A blank piece of paper,followed by a play called 'Much Ado About Nothing' ending with a u-turn.
David Cameron has demanded an inquiry into the "totally unacceptable" incident in which a Spanish patrol boat took potshots at a British jet skier off the coast of Gibraltar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10148722/Cameron-demands-inquiry-over-unacceptable-jet-ski-shooting-incident.html
https://twitter.com/benedictbrogan/status/350721073161043969/photo/1
Bit from column A, bit from column B. Crap is of course a highly relative term considering SLAB made Lamont leader. Though IIRC that was mainly on the union vote and I think Macintosh would have won if it was just the members and PLP. Little Ed may have had a hand in the union vote swinging behind her which might help explain her obedience. Little Ed also certainly didn't help Macintosh by so publicly forgetting his name.
In the Deputy contest, Boy Sarwar won MPs, MSPs, Members while Davidson won in the Union section
Could you drop PtP an e-mail, he's probably sick of my interminable Nat bets.
Liberal Democrats who fail to back a Bill to give voters a referendum on European Union membership will be undermining democracy, David Cameron has suggested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10149415/Cameron-plea-on-EU-vote.html
Tim,one of the stories from the telegraph front page,well done cammers,he's right.
The Office for National Statistics said the number of 25 to 34-year-olds who own their home has fallen from two million to 1.3 million in a decade.
Only 40 per cent of young adults own their own home compared with 58 per cent in 2001.
The figures illustrate for the first time the sharp decline in home ownership among young people since Mrs Thatcher’s home ownership drive of the Seventies and Eighties.
The number of young people renting has risen sharply from 1.5 million to two million over the same period as high property prices and low wages lock young people out of the housing market.
The figures, based on England and Wales census data, also show that the number of people renting homes in 2011 was more than 8.3 million — the highest since 1961.
Experts said the data showed that Mrs Thatcher’s dream of a property-owning democracy was now a “relic”, and that it could take years for young professionals to be able to afford to leave the family home.
See: http://bit.ly/1cwmfRG
Rather sets out the political goals of Osborne's housing market interventions, doesn't it?
Let's just say I doubt all is sweetness and light in SLAB right now after that reshuffle.
Ian Gray takes the Finance briefing replacing Ken McIntosh who returns to the backbenches.
Kezia Dugdale is promoted to Education replacing Hugh Henry.
Jackie Baillie goes from Health to Social justice, equalities and welfare. She will also be in charge of the party manifesto.
Health goes to left wing MSP Neil Findlay.
Graeme Pearson is promoted to Justice
Chief Whip James Kelly moves to Infrastructure and capital investment replacing Richard Baker.
Lewis McDonald becomes Chief Whip.
Jenny Marra becomes Gray's deputy and spokeswoman for youth employment.
Drew Smith becomes Constitution spokesman.
Richard Baker takes a "wider policy review role" whatever it means
Dugdale, Pearson, Findlay, Marra and Smith are from 2011 intake.
Members: McIntosh 53.1% Lamont 36.5% Harris 10.3%
Affiliated: Lamont 65.4% McIntosh 26.4% Harris 8.2%
MPs/MSPs: Sarwar 66.6% MacDonald 20% Davidson 13.3%
Members: Sarwar 61% Davidson 25.4% MacDonald 13.5%
Affiliated: Davidson 61.1% Sarwar 25.6% MacDonald 13.3%
And no chance either of drug de-criminalisation, is there?
Why do you bother?
seasonally adjusted [house building] starts are now 62% above the trough in the March quarter 2009 but 44% below the March quarter 2007 peak; completions are 49% below their March quarter 2007 peak [DCLG]
It is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide an adequate number of school places for the population of the country. That responsibility falls on local authorities in England. The Secretary of State has the extraordinary power, when local authorities are demonstrated to be in default of their obligations, to intervene and to direct local authorities and governing bodies to act in such a way that they cease to be in default of their obligations. The power is extraordinary, and vitiates the general aim that maintained schools should be managed by local authorities. Now, unless people believe that the Secretary of State should adopt an (unlawful) policy of anticipating that every local authority in the country will default in respect of their obligations, it is not for the Secretary of State to adopt a policy of central planning in relation to school places, unless and until Parliament changes the law.
'Meanwhile, Mr Findlay called for the Scottish Parliament to be handed full income tax powers to allow MSPs to increase taxes on the wealthy.
He said: “If we don’t have public services funded by taxation than we would start to see the break up of society.
“Public services are a civilising force and powers over personal taxation to generate finance for these services would be a positive move.
“I’m not afraid to say that I believe in redistribution.”'
http://tinyurl.com/9kdhcjv
But Labour as a party is simply not upto that kind of longer-term thinking (shame on them) and the Tories aren't going to be politically altruistic. So we all just stagger on.
And you know and I know that housing will never be centre-stage at election time. Look at MORI and YouGov for its salience as an issue.
House Prices
Only in London have house prices recovered to peak levels prevailing in 2007: The £600,000 cap on mortgages eligible for government interventionary assistance rules out all but low value property in London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10146962/Nick-Boles-suffers-heckling-and-walk-outs-at-stormy-CPRE-meeting.html
I know a fair few boomers and they are pretty much all NIMBYs opposed to even the principle of building houses let alone any that are proposed to be built near them.
Ask them whether they would choose to prevent building even if it means the younger generations are priced out of owning a decent home forever and they will happily say yes.
10,977 days ago this was happening:
http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=06&d1=09&y1=1983&m2=6&d2=28&y2=2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3eb5b5DOZs&
One of the central reasons why there has not been a sufficiently large reduction in house prices from the mad levels they reached under the last government is that their is a political consensus that monetary policy should be used to keep house prices high. It will be very difficult to make housing more affordable until monetary policy changes. That, of course, isn't a justification for not building (or more accurately, allowing to be built) houses on a large scale, which is justified in and of itself. Unfortunately, there is little to indicate that any major party is prepared to take the "difficult decisions" needed to lance this boil in the foreseeable future. They are all charlatans.
http://nofordecotown.blogspot.pt/
The boomers really don't want the view from their many windows spoiled by younger people's housing. And let's be honest the old hold all the power in politics in Britain.
You put some interesting links on Free School funding up on the last thread.
Just wanted to check I was reading it right.
The 87 schools for which details were provided got, in aggregate, £20m in additional pre-opening funding (above the normal per-pupil funding) to fund all the preparation cost plus a further £40m in start up costs (buying books & equipment etc).
Is that the sum total of this *massive* secret funding scandal that tim's been boring us all to tears about?
The current stock of mortgaged housing is valued at £1.8 trillion with loans outstanding of £1.2 trillion, a 66% Loan to Value ratio for all loans of all maturity.
Most lenders are reluctant to lend at greater than 75% LTV for new mortgages partly due to the risk of catastrophic falls in housing values. (Also due to the increased regulatory capital requirements for higher risk mortgage books).
The banking system and therefore the whole UK economy depends on the property assets held to secure mortgage lending to be at least stable in value.
The economic shock of allowing housing values to fall to 1930s value to income ratios would destroy the UK economy.
If house prices fall substantially then banks won't lend and construction companies won't build. Exactly what happened after the Brown noughties bubble burst.
The only option for any chancellor regardless of party is to return the housing market to liquidity and normal functioning and over a very long term allow house price inflation to grow less than income. The timespan needed to redress such imbalances needs to be measured in decades not years.
Housing construction also needs stimulating but it can only grow in line with demand. Simply constructing hundreds of thousands of properties when there is no demand will result in similar economic crashes to those experienced in Spain and Ireland (and probably soon China).
And the economics of housing construction apply as much to governments as they do to the private sector. Borrowing to construct large amounts of social housing when the private sector market remains illiquid and stagnant would result in unsustainable taxpayer losses.
Given this environment just what would you recommend Osborne does to solve the problems of the housing market?
They receive the per-pupil funding, plus the pupil-premium (as appropriate) plus the information released - £60m between 87 schools, so about £750K extra per school.
These are the footnotes explaining the categories:
Note 1 - Pre-Opening Expenditure: The Department provides a project development grant to help Trusts cover costs in the run up to opening a free school. The funding is designed to enable Trusts to cover everything they will need to buy up to the point at which the school opens. The Department expects all expenditure to be essential to the project and be based on what represents the best value for money for the school. The grant can be used for the cost of any project management support for education services and for other costs. All schools – not just free schools – will receive pre-opening funding. For example the funding provided to free schools is similar to that provided to new opening sponsored Academies and less than that provided to sponsored academies between 2007 and 2009, Ashcroft Technology Academy, Wandsworth received £501,912, The Bridge Academy, Hackney received £544,686, Darwen Aldridge Community Academy, Blackburn with Darwen received £562,783 and The St Lawrence Academy, North Lincolnshire received £576,969. For maintained schools separate funding figures are not available but these will often be planned over a longer period and the school would have direct support from council officers in relation to issues such as pupil recruitment, project management and staff recruitment and the local authority would cover the costs of employing a headteacher in the run up to the opening of the school.
Note 2 - Post-Opening Expenditure: A number of free schools which opened have received start-up funding in addition to their per-pupil funding. Start-up funding is not usually paid to existing independent schools becoming free schools unless there are exceptional circumstances. The funding is designed to enable schools to cover essential initial costs, such as buying books and equipment; and to meet the costs arising as the school builds up its pupil numbers over time - as they could not otherwise meet the full cost of a headteacher and other senior staff from the per pupil funding initially received. This funding is essential to meet the additional costs associated with starting a brand new school. Similar support has always been provided to new Academies, for example: the King Solomon Academy, the Brent Academy, the Wren Academy, and The City Academy, Hackney (opened 2007-09) all received between £634,000 and £1,374,820 of start-up funding during their first year of opening.
The house price index returning to 2007 levels does not mean that house prices have kept pace with inflation. It means that they have returned to 2007 values in 2002 prices.
The Index for UK property in 2007 was 184.4. If CPI is applied to that (17.38% increase) then the Index would rise to 216.4 in 2013. If the actual House Price index for 2013 is below 216.4 then the property owner would have suffered a loss in real terms.
So simply saying that house prices have recovered their peak 2007 values does not take into account inflation.
And that economic price needs to be sufficient to provide construction companies with a reasonable profit for building the property. A reasonable profit being one that provides a return on capital employed which is broadly competitive with alternative opportunities for investing the same capital.
You seem to be suggesting that councils and pension funds can invest capital in social housing build at lower than competitive returns in order to realise a social good (more people housed at lower rents). This is simply a subsidy of social housing tenants by pensioners and council tax payers.
Central or local governments borrowing money to build social housing which doesn't lead to competitive returns is as much a sin as allowing house prices in the private sector to grow faster and further than general inflation.
A hidden bubble is as much a bubble as a visible one.
The Conservatives have already set the agenda on the issue of an In/Out EU Referendum, we are having one, and preferable after we have re-negotiated some key powers back to Westminster..... or not. And we even have a sensible time table pencilled into the diary too. The ball is now in the EU's court.
And yet Ed Miliband and the Shadow Labour Cabinet are still prevaricating about what their position is going to be on this one. I am just surprised they managed to set themselves that many silly elephant traps to immediately fall into in one round of briefing of their perceived options. In other words, Ed Miliband & Co still haven't got a clue what their preferred option is with the Euro's looming up next year.
The threat of backing an early Referendum has the distinct whiff of the same silly partisan politics that led Brown, Miliband & Balls into that Autumn GE that never was trap. That is, they fell into the very trap they tried to set for Cameron and the Conservatives. So no surprise that the fall guy Dougie Alexander on that occasion is less than keen. I know that there is an inherent desire to try to fill the current Labour policy vacuum with briefings of yet undecided issues. But this kind of loose chatter can lead to a danger of others filling in your policies for you.
I particularly like the idea of Ed Miliband demanding an early EU Referendum at the Labour Conference gaining legs and running away with itself in the hope of causing divisions within the Tory party. Miliband might not want to give Cameron a similar platform at his own Conference to utter the words yet again, 'bring it on if you think your hard enough'. So we could yet see Labour march their troops up to the top of the hill on the back of a media driven band wagon, only for them to be forced to back off at the last minute on the issue of an early Referendum. The media would have a field day if Ed Miliband is caught playing this game, especially if has to back down even before he had fought a GE campaign in much the same way Brown did.
But here is hoping that the temptation to try to divert the focus away from a recovering economy and Labour's internal policy divisions proving too much for the two Ed's in the run up to the Euro Elections.
So the downsides for Labour are:
a) Cameron says "bring it on", there's a referendum, it helps Cameron with his UKIP problem and may result in leaving the EU.
b) Cameron stands firm, Labour have to explain whether they support a referendum after 2015:
1) No looks weird after they advocated one now. The line would be that they wanted to remove the uncertainty, but that implies they're not confident of winning the election, which is an opposition taboo.
2) Means they argument is about whether they'd do the same renegotiation as Cameron. No lets Cameron keep the skeptic vote and reduces the value of the whole exercise. Yes puts them on the same hook as Cameron, over-promising the result of a probably non-existent treaty in a way that is bound to disappoint.
I can see the attraction of the move, but it's probably too clever by half. They're better doing what they're doing now, letting the Tories scratch each other's eyes out while Labour talk about jobs.
@edmundintokyo Labour would be repeating the mistakes of the over ramping of the Autumn GE that never was. Right now, its Labour that are having this internal discussion on the EU rather than talking about jobs or any other credible policies involving the economy. Lets not forget that Brown&Co were ramping up this snap GE against the back drop of the growing signs we were about to be engulfed in the banking crisis. The Tories are no longer scratching each others eyes out over the issue of the EU, as shown by the way the party has now got behind Conservative MP James Wharton's private members bill.