politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Liverpool, Wavertree : A Historical Tale of Caution
Independents have had a remarkably successful run in the last few general elections. Despite the fact that both Dai Davies (Ind, Blaenau Gwent) and Dr.
I can see the ongoing fragmentation of politics leading to a continental-style parliament of ever-changing coalitions. I've yet to determine whether this is a good or a bad thing, but am currently thinking that the checks-and-balances of a coalition is preferable to the dictatorial styles of Brown and (to some extent) Thatcher.
I also wonder how much the internet influences this, amplifying the voice of those who would have been roundly ignored and quickly forgotten in the past.
The good news. It just keeps coming, and coming, and coming.
First, the Bank of England reports that approvals for mortgages on house purchases were at their highest for three years in May 2013, indicating a revival in the housing sales market spurred on by the Treasury's market support schemes.
Second, Markit reports that the UK's Manufacturing PMI has risen to 52.5, its highest level since the second quarter of 2011, with production and new orders up and intermediate stocks down all promising sustained recovery for the rest of this year.
Third, the day after Danny Alexander justified his long term investment plans on the Andrew Marr show by saying:
“What I’ve announced is our plans going out to 2020, providing precisely the sort of long-term certainty that investors in the private sector say that they need in order to gear up to deliver the sort of infrastructure this country needs.”,
up pops the Kuwait Investment Authority to announce that it intends to invest as much as $5 billion in infrastructure assets mainly in the UK in the next three to five years.
I'm not sure that a 20 year old will have the maturity or experience to develop good judgement yet, so, especially given he is a Labour councillor, he is likely to vote the party line.
The only reason to effectively disenfranchise the non-Labour supporting 42% would be to take a run at getting rid of Luciana Berger....
...hmmh... on second thoughts...
EDIT: Harry - just read the Echo story. LibDems not running a candidate (probably just trying to save money and effort). You may want to update the thread
Pressed on whose decision it was to make the donation in shares, Mr Mills said he did not have enough spare money to make a cash donation worth £1.65m and the conclusion came out of discussions with the party on the most effective way of ensuring a steady flow of support for Labour.
So that's all right then. Presumably the same argument would apply if he was trying to buy a yacht costing £1.65m but didn't have enough spare cash to do so.
On topic: Yes, but... is this Jake Morrision chappie well-enough established to do serious damage to Labour? He looks about sixteen, which suggests not, but others may have a better insight.
Whilst this young chap may not win or even cost Labour the seat it sounds another demoralising tale of the droiding up of MPs and the disenfranchising of local voters.
Still - when a party stands for government knows best on an national level and doesn't trust the voters with a say on Europe it should be no surprise it doesn't trust local party members to pick candidates.
Do you honestly think Labour voters in Wavertree actually think before voting. Labour nailed on, and then some. Noone will stand down even though they should.
Do you honestly think Labour voters in Wavertree actually think before voting. Labour nailed on, and then some. Noone will stand down even though they should.
They probably think as much as Tory voters in Tunbridge Wells think before they vote Tory.
If anyone's ganging up on a sitting Liverpudlian MP can I suggest Esther McVey. Just the sound of her voice has people reaching for the sick bag. Not since Nicolas Ridley has such an unattractive performer been given so much media time.
Do you honestly think Labour voters in Wavertree actually think before voting. Labour nailed on, and then some. Noone will stand down even though they should.
They probably think as much as Tory voters in Tunbridge Wells think before they vote Tory.
Young Jake says he wants to vomit at the mere prospect of coalition with the Lib-Dems. And yet, if they stand down in Wavertree at the next election that is effectively what he has done ...
There isnt a dispute between them, tim. There are the facts and there's your inability to reconcile them to your numerous posts on this issue over the past few years.
Neil, that doesn't seem to me to be the clearest piece of analysis but what I would draw from it is that the policy of restricting HB to the cheapest 30% band in the local area has been effective in reducing the cost of HB per claim but not necessarily the total number of claims.
The very strong increase in mortgage applications we are now seeing suggests to me that the option of buying is becoming more available again and that the majority have worked out it is usually cheaper to do so if you can afford to pay the mortgage. This should take some pressure off the let sector but is unlikely to have such a significant effect as the change of entitlement in the short run.
Despite all the predictions of doom there is very little evidence to support the hypothesis of HB spiraling out of control.
EDIT: Harry - just read the Echo story. LibDems not running a candidate (probably just trying to save money and effort). You may want to update the thread
I've read the article too and see no commitment to stand aside from the Lib Dems.
It appears that the OBR is taking account of London
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.
The OBR said the latest rise is due to ‘more detailed modelling of the housing benefit incapacity group by benefit type, and more detailed modelling of housing benefit entitlement to reflect differences in population and rent growth in different regions’.
And the DWP isn't
This analysis is at a Great Britain level, using Great Britain averages in each year. These will be affected by a number of different factors, including changes in the mix of claimants, and changes in the distribution of claimants across the country. In particular, private rents are significantly higher in London than elsewhere, and as the caseload in London has increased by more than elsewhere over the period covered, this will contribute towards some of the observed growth in rents. If the analysis was produced at a more disaggregated geographical or claimant type level, then the results would be different
So where's your money going on who's right?
Not with the OBR.
Their March EFO will probably go down in history as one of the most inaccurate forecasts of economic performance by an independent body set up solely and wholly for the purpose of making economic forecasts.
I am convinced Robert Chote had his breakfast orange juices spiked at the Old Compton Street branch of Patisserie Valerie when preparing the figures.
EDIT: Harry - just read the Echo story. LibDems not running a candidate (probably just trying to save money and effort). You may want to update the thread
I've read the article too and see no commitment to stand aside from the Lib Dems.
I suppose you could argue that a statement is not a commitment?
"And, in a surprise development, the Lib Dems have said they will not field a candidate in order to give Cllr Morrison a clear run against Miss Berger."
Do you honestly think Labour voters in Wavertree actually think before voting. Labour nailed on, and then some. Noone will stand down even though they should.
They probably think as much as Tory voters in Tunbridge Wells think before they vote Tory.
I'm not sure that a 20 year old will have the maturity or experience to develop good judgement yet, so, especially given he is a Labour councillor, he is likely to vote the party line.
The only reason to effectively disenfranchise the non-Labour supporting 42% would be to take a run at getting rid of Luciana Berger....
...hmmh... on second thoughts...
EDIT: Harry - just read the Echo story. LibDems not running a candidate (probably just trying to save money and effort). You may want to update the thread
Do you honestly think Labour voters in Wavertree actually think before voting. Labour nailed on, and then some. Noone will stand down even though they should.
The seat, or the bulk of it (there's been boundary changes), was Tory between the war and 1983.(Anthony Steen) Then it was Lib Dem until 1997 (David Alton)
So I'd say you didn't think before typing. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, PB Tory motto number 21
Its a fair cop. I just don't think young Jake has a prayer against the Labour party machinery in Liverpool though.
I suppose you could argue that a statement is not a commitment?
"And, in a surprise development, the Lib Dems have said they will not field a candidate in order to give Cllr Morrison a clear run against Miss Berger."
What possible appeal could a locally born councillor have against the London born, privately educated (Haberdasher Aske's), ICADE alumna with a Masters from Birkbeck, and former Management Consultant (Accenture), the fragrant Ms Berger?
If anyone knows what makes Wavertree tick, or the day to day lives of her constituents - its surely must be Sion Simon's former squeeze....
It appears that the OBR is taking account of London
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.
The OBR said the latest rise is due to ‘more detailed modelling of the housing benefit incapacity group by benefit type, and more detailed modelling of housing benefit entitlement to reflect differences in population and rent growth in different regions’.
And the DWP isn't
This analysis is at a Great Britain level, using Great Britain averages in each year. These will be affected by a number of different factors, including changes in the mix of claimants, and changes in the distribution of claimants across the country. In particular, private rents are significantly higher in London than elsewhere, and as the caseload in London has increased by more than elsewhere over the period covered, this will contribute towards some of the observed growth in rents. If the analysis was produced at a more disaggregated geographical or claimant type level, then the results would be different
So where's your money going on who's right?
Not with the OBR.
Their March EFO will probably go down in history as one of the most inaccurate forecasts of economic performance by an independent body set up solely and wholly for the purpose of making economic forecasts.
I am convinced Robert Chote had his breakfast orange juices spiked at the Old Compton Street branch of Patisserie Valerie when preparing the figures.
This really wasn't a good start was it?
"With the economy entering 2013 with somewhat less momentum than we expected in December, a weaker outlook for consumer spending, business investment and exports has prompted us to revise down our near-term growth forecasts to 0.6 per cent this year and 1.8 per cent in 2014."
I can't help feeling that having been consistently over optimistic in it's first couple of years they were determined to be pessimistic this time in the slightly naive belief this would help their "credibility".
I think there are very good odds that their forecast for this year will be out by a factor of 3.
There's only a point to standing aside if (1) doing so is likely to affect the result of the election and (2) that result will produce a person elected who will be more amenable to the party standing down than would otherwise be the case.
In this instance (as in Blaenau Gwent recently), the choice is between an official Labour candidate and what in effect is an Independent Labour candidate. While it's possible that the Independent may sweep up some of the anti-Labour votes, firstly, I don't think that this is the sort of Ind Lab that's likely to win anyway and secondly, the similarities in policy stance mean that it would be wrong to disenfranchise those voters who want to support a centre or centre-right party if the Lib Dems and Conservatives were to stand down.
As an aside, were the Yellows and Blues to leave the field in Wavertree, the prime beneficiaries may be the Purples rather than the differently Reds.
I'm not sure that a 20 year old will have the maturity or experience to develop good judgement yet, so, especially given he is a Labour councillor, he is likely to vote the party line.
The only reason to effectively disenfranchise the non-Labour supporting 42% would be to take a run at getting rid of Luciana Berger....
...hmmh... on second thoughts...
EDIT: Harry - just read the Echo story. LibDems not running a candidate (probably just trying to save money and effort). You may want to update the thread
Fancy a bet that the Lib Dems won't stand down?
Nah. I don't expect them to keep their promises
They haven't made any.
Jake Morrison has been all over the place anyway
The past 2 years as a Councillor have absolutely shown me that I want a career in politics. It is the best way to make a real positive difference. I have worked with so many inspirational, committed people, and I hope to continue to do this! I do however want to take a break out of politics in 2015. It will give me some time to concentrate on other things, and if I am meant to be back in politics, we can see if that then happens!
There isnt a dispute between them, tim. There are the facts and there's your inability to reconcile them to your numerous posts on this issue over the past few years.
A forecast is not a fact.
The facts show that HB spending has gone up. A forecast from the DWP says it may go down. A forecast from the OBR says that it will go up. We will have to see who is correct.
I've read a little about this in the Echo from time to time but there are a few differences from the other examples OGH quotes. Yes, she is 'posh totty' parachuted in from London but he's still only twenty, without a lot of experience in politics. The Peoples' Republic of Judea springs to mind but I suspect Ms Berger will still be MP in 2015.
Odd Thread. "My advice to the coalition parties is STAND DOWN."
Not sure there's any point, I doubt very much that Mr Morrisson has any appeal to Tory or Liberal voters, who would be disenfranchised if they were denied official candidates. Unlike Tatton there is no cross-party issue here. Just tactics.
I suppose you could argue that a statement is not a commitment?
"And, in a surprise development, the Lib Dems have said they will not field a candidate in order to give Cllr Morrison a clear run against Miss Berger."
I'm not sure that a 20 year old will have the maturity or experience to develop good judgement yet, so, especially given he is a Labour councillor, he is likely to vote the party line.
The only reason to effectively disenfranchise the non-Labour supporting 42% would be to take a run at getting rid of Luciana Berger....
...hmmh... on second thoughts...
EDIT: Harry - just read the Echo story. LibDems not running a candidate (probably just trying to save money and effort). You may want to update the thread
Fancy a bet that the Lib Dems won't stand down?
Nah. I don't expect them to keep their promises
They haven't made any.
Jake Morrison has been all over the place anyway
The past 2 years as a Councillor have absolutely shown me that I want a career in politics. It is the best way to make a real positive difference. I have worked with so many inspirational, committed people, and I hope to continue to do this! I do however want to take a break out of politics in 2015. It will give me some time to concentrate on other things, and if I am meant to be back in politics, we can see if that then happens!
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
I can't help feeling that having been consistently over optimistic in it's first couple of years they were determined to be pessimistic this time in the slightly naive belief this would help their "credibility".
This stuff is quite hard and there are lots of ways you could get systematic errors in one direction, especially if you have to use consistent, objective measures that you had to decide on in advance, rather than being able to say, "This gave us this number, but it seems too big, and it's probably going wrong because of X".
For comparison, this is Yglesias on the US job reports. For example, he reckons that they understate employment when the economy is growing, because they get their data from a survey of companies, but when the economy is growing new companies are opening up, and they can't survey them yet because they don't know they exist. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/06/jobs_report_how_to_read_one.html
I suppose you could argue that a statement is not a commitment?
"And, in a surprise development, the Lib Dems have said they will not field a candidate in order to give Cllr Morrison a clear run against Miss Berger."
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
As I have said, an odd piece of analysis. But what I think it is saying is that approximately £3bn of the increase in HB is attributable to the absurd HB policies that were in place under the last government. As the changes that this government has made come into effect the increase caused by that incompetence will fall.
It does not mean that HB is falling per se, nor that the total number of claims is reducing. The Housing market would indicate that they are increasing as the number of people renting is increasing but that might be about to change.
Because of the rate at which it is changing my guess would be that the OBR have been as overly pessimistic about this as they were about growth but this document really does not help in that. It is simply a calculation of another part of the cost of electing Labour governments.
Well, yes. But as no-one ever claimed it was that doesnt really get us anywhere.
In which case, we can all agree that Tim can easily reconcile his posts with the fact that the DWP shows spending on HB increasing and the fact that the OBR forecasts that spending will continue to rise.
I am enjoying the idea that some on here now give more credibility to government forecasts than they do to OBR forecasts. It does suggest that the OBR may actually be a complete waste of time and money.
I suppose you could argue that a statement is not a commitment?
"And, in a surprise development, the Lib Dems have said they will not field a candidate in order to give Cllr Morrison a clear run against Miss Berger."
That's not actually a statement from the Lib Dems, Charles. That's something a journalist has written.
"the Lib Dems have said". Presumably he based that on something?
If he had written "There has been speculation that..." I would agree with you
One Lib Dem has said , the remainder of the local Lib Dems have in fact said the opposite .
That was the odd thing. there was a detailed paragraph at the end reflecting the local LibDem (former MP I think), but this sentence was in a separate part of the article and implies an offical position ("the LibDems" not "a LibDem").
I can accept crap journalism, thought, because I don't really care one way or another. Thought it was a cute way to save a bit of money and distraction though...
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
As I have said, an odd piece of analysis. But what I think it is saying is that approximately £3bn of the increase in HB is attributable to the absurd HB policies that were in place under the last government. As the changes that this government has made come into effect the increase caused by that incompetence will fall.
It does not mean that HB is falling per se, nor that the total number of claims is reducing. The Housing market would indicate that they are increasing as the number of people renting is increasing but that might be about to change.
Because of the rate at which it is changing my guess would be that the OBR have been as overly pessimistic about this as they were about growth but this document really does not help in that. It is simply a calculation of another part of the cost of electing Labour governments.
Genuine question: what changes did the last government make to housing benefit payments?
'If you ignore the lack of housebuilding before and after the last govt, yes it's solely a New Labour problem.'
Which other government was in power for 13 years,allowed 3-4 million immigrants to come into the country and preside over the worst social house building program since the second world war?.
I can't help feeling that having been consistently over optimistic in it's first couple of years they were determined to be pessimistic this time in the slightly naive belief this would help their "credibility".
This stuff is quite hard and there are lots of ways you could get systematic errors in one direction, especially if you have to use consistent, objective measures that you had to decide on in advance, rather than being able to say, "This gave us this number, but it seems too big, and it's probably going wrong because of X".
For comparison, this is Yglesias on the US job reports. For example, he reckons that they understate employment when the economy is growing, because they get their data from a survey of companies, but when the economy is growing new companies are opening up, and they can't survey them yet because they don't know they exist. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/06/jobs_report_how_to_read_one.html
Oh yes, it is a well known and recognised phenomena that economists are most likely to get their forecasts wrong at inflection points in the economy. Economists (sweeping generalisation here) always underestimate how much their forecasts are based on ceteris paribus.
The source of growth this year is rather mysterious. Exports are not doing any better. The north sea continues to disappoint. Real earnings have been falling. The deficit is, at best, not a positive force. There is no evidence that QE is really working. Lending to business continues to fall month on month. The EZ continues to discourage investment.
But employment has continued to grow and the great British consumer seems to have had enough and cut their savings rate to very low levels. Hard to see that because it is partly an irrational response.
On balance I would prefer the OBR to be cautious and for surprises to be on the upside but it does have to be recognised that there is potential for policy errors on both sides of the balance.
I am enjoying the idea that some on here now give more credibility to government forecasts than they do to OBR forecasts. It does suggest that the OBR may actually be a complete waste of time and money.
Maybe this lot are better at forecasts than the Brown Blair governments. If anyone like Brown got in again we would need an OBR as a counter balance the fairies that danced around in his head creating the fantasy numbers he presented to base government on.
I suppose you could argue that a statement is not a commitment?
"And, in a surprise development, the Lib Dems have said they will not field a candidate in order to give Cllr Morrison a clear run against Miss Berger."
That's not actually a statement from the Lib Dems, Charles. That's something a journalist has written.
"the Lib Dems have said". Presumably he based that on something?
If he had written "There has been speculation that..." I would agree with you
One Lib Dem has said , the remainder of the local Lib Dems have in fact said the opposite .
That was the odd thing. there was a detailed paragraph at the end reflecting the local LibDem (former MP I think), but this sentence was in a separate part of the article and implies an offical position ("the LibDems" not "a LibDem").
I can accept crap journalism, thought, because I don't really care one way or another. Thought it was a cute way to save a bit of money and distraction though...
The person quoted is a former councillor . The rest of the local Lib Dems stated an opposite position but probably post that article .
I am enjoying the idea that some on here now give more credibility to government forecasts than they do to OBR forecasts. It does suggest that the OBR may actually be a complete waste of time and money.
Maybe this lot are better at forecasts than the Brown Blair governments. If anyone like Brown got in again we would need an OBR as a counter balance the fairies that danced around in his head creating the fantasy numbers he presented to base government on.
Politicians do not do the forecasting. It's done by civil servants. It is, of course, politically convenient for the current government that a DWP forecast has been published showing that HB spending may fall over the coming years.
tim - the 2011/12 figure is an actual not a forecast. You dont need to look at the 2012/13 estimate to draw conclusions from the data. In any case the OBR forecast for 2012/13 also has a falling average cost per claim for 2012/13 (and recent ONS data shows that private rents in 2012/13 were lagging inflation).
@Neil - Oi, you, leave poor, innocent, defenceless tim alone. Remember the pbTories are no longer the nasty party (well, until the fifth round of cocktails that is).
If I remember correctly, there was a lot of talk about Ricky Tomlinson standing against Berger at the last election. Had he gone through with it, I suspect he would have won.
Only a few weeks ago, I saw him opening the Clitheroe beer festival. Nice as it was, he could have been at the HoC supping for England
However, to make up for your disappointment I am more than willing to bet you that the average private sector eligible rent will grow less in real terms under the "housing benefit junkies" in the Tory party than it did in either of the last two terms of Labour.
That's slightly more related to the topic under discussion, dont you agree?
I am enjoying the idea that some on here now give more credibility to government forecasts than they do to OBR forecasts. It does suggest that the OBR may actually be a complete waste of time and money.
Maybe this lot are better at forecasts than the Brown Blair governments. If anyone like Brown got in again we would need an OBR as a counter balance the fairies that danced around in his head creating the fantasy numbers he presented to base government on.
You have it the wrong way round. Under Brown, the government decided how much it wanted to tax, to spend and to borrow, and only then worked out the growth that would be needed to produce that outcome.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
As I have said, an odd piece of analysis. But what I think it is saying is that approximately £3bn of the increase in HB is attributable to the absurd HB policies that were in place under the last government. As the changes that this government has made come into effect the increase caused by that incompetence will fall.
It does not mean that HB is falling per se, nor that the total number of claims is reducing. The Housing market would indicate that they are increasing as the number of people renting is increasing but that might be about to change.
Because of the rate at which it is changing my guess would be that the OBR have been as overly pessimistic about this as they were about growth but this document really does not help in that. It is simply a calculation of another part of the cost of electing Labour governments.
Genuine question: what changes did the last government make to housing benefit payments?
I am not an expert SO but the big changes were in 2002 when the Local Housing Allowance was introduced. To quote from Wiki:
"The transition from the old housing benefit system to Local Housing Allowance significantly increased payments available for larger houses in some areas, as can be seen by comparing the Local Reference Rent calculated by the Valuation Office Agency, which served as the basis for determining the old housing benefit, against the current Local Housing Allowance. As an example, the Local Reference Rent for the largest type of house in the East Thames Valley locality in March 2009 was £328.85 per week, while the Local Housing Allowance for a similar property in the same area was £646.15 per week, an increase of £16,500 per year."
The "bedroom tax" is an attempt, arguably misguided, to try and recoup some of that. In 2008 there were further changes which introduced a bedroom tax into the private sector but also allowed a large range of what were called extended payments for which recipients could qualify in many areas.
What I would say was there biggest fault, however, is largely one of default. The 2002 regulations introduced broader area calculations for entitlements which reflected the going rate in an area rather than what the individual property was worth. This had the effect of driving up the rents in the poorer properties to the maximum level for that area, enormously increasing the cost to the tax payer. It also set a floor with the premium properties getting more from those not on benefits creating a new and higher floor. In effect the taxpayer ended up bidding against itself driving rents ever upwards.
This is why the changes which fixed HB at the bottom 30% in any area were so important, so much more important than this bedroom nonsense. This is taking the driver of public money out of rents and replacing it with a downward pressure instead. Not good for buy to let landlords, very good for the rest of us.
I can't help feeling that having been consistently over optimistic in it's first couple of years they were determined to be pessimistic this time in the slightly naive belief this would help their "credibility".
This stuff is quite hard and there are lots of ways you could get systematic errors in one direction, especially if you have to use consistent, objective measures that you had to decide on in advance, rather than being able to say, "This gave us this number, but it seems too big, and it's probably going wrong because of X".
For comparison, this is Yglesias on the US job reports. For example, he reckons that they understate employment when the economy is growing, because they get their data from a survey of companies, but when the economy is growing new companies are opening up, and they can't survey them yet because they don't know they exist. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/06/jobs_report_how_to_read_one.html
Oh yes, it is a well known and recognised phenomena that economists are most likely to get their forecasts wrong at inflection points in the economy. Economists (sweeping generalisation here) always underestimate how much their forecasts are based on ceteris paribus.
The source of growth this year is rather mysterious. Exports are not doing any better. The north sea continues to disappoint. Real earnings have been falling. The deficit is, at best, not a positive force. There is no evidence that QE is really working. Lending to business continues to fall month on month. The EZ continues to discourage investment.
But employment has continued to grow and the great British consumer seems to have had enough and cut their savings rate to very low levels. Hard to see that because it is partly an irrational response.
On balance I would prefer the OBR to be cautious and for surprises to be on the upside but it does have to be recognised that there is potential for policy errors on both sides of the balance.
To be fair, probably the majority of predictions are 'like the past, only more so', with most of the rest being 'like the past, only less so'.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
If you ignore the lack of housebuilding before and after the last govt, yes it's solely a New Labour problem. But outside of you and one or two other of the stragglers nobody thinks housing issues in this country are the preserve of one decade or one party.
Dear tim,
Whenever you make statements such as "before and after the last govt" or "both parties are to blame", suspicion wells up in my barometer of scepticism.
So off I go to the house build statistics to see what you are failing to mention. And look what I find:
House Building: Local Government Permanent dwellings started -------------------------------------------------- Labour Governments (1997-2001,2001-2005,2005-2010) 1997 120 1998 130 1999 20 2000 160 2001 90 2002 40 2003 20 2004 - 2005 - 2006 10 2007 30 2008 430 2009 250 2010 540 ----------- Total 1,840 ----- -------------------------------------------------- Coalition Government (2010-) 2011 3,090 2012 1,340* 2012 1,550**
----------- Total 5,980 ----- * Includes figures for England only ** Forecast figures for England only
So the Coalition Government in its first year in office has started more local government builds than the previous Labour governments did in their entire thirteen years in office.
So now I know. That is what tim means by "both parties are to blame" for the housing shortage problem.
my point is that the consensus on housing in this country has involved all parties and needs to be broken in 2015
Really, because your countless posts about "housing benefit junkies" in the Tory party may have led some to believe you thought that the Tories in particular were responsible for ramping up the cost of housing benefit. A belief that might have been shaken by figures showing that average eligible private sector rents rose by 45% in real terms under 10 years of Labour government while they have actually fallen under the Tories.
Still, I trust all of pbc will be relieved to hear that your references to housing benefit junkies actually refer to all parties (even if it looks more appropriate to Labour than the others).
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
If you ignore the lack of housebuilding before and after the last govt, yes it's solely a New Labour problem. But outside of you and one or two other of the stragglers nobody thinks housing issues in this country are the preserve of one decade or one party.
Dear tim,
Whenever you make statements such as "before and after the last govt" or "both parties are to blame", suspicion wells up in my barometer of scepticism.
So off I go to the house build statistics to see what you are failing to mention. And look what I find:
House Building: Local Government Permanent dwellings started -------------------------------------------------- Labour Governments (1997-2001,2001-2005,2005-2010) 1997 120 1998 130 1999 20 2000 160 2001 90 2002 40 2003 20 2004 - 2005 - 2006 10 2007 30 2008 430 2009 250 2010 540 ----------- Total 1,840 ----- -------------------------------------------------- Coalition Government (2010-) 2011 3,090 2012 1,340* 2012 1,550**
----------- Total 5,980 ----- * Includes figures for England only ** Forecast figures for England only
So the Coalition Government in its first year in office has started more local government builds than the previous Labour governments did in their entire thirteen years in office.
So now I know. That is what tim means by "both parties are to blame" for the housing shortage problem.
Be absolutely careful Avery. Tim's belief is that housebuilding will address a multitude of sins and it is certainly as good an opinion as any and better than many (namely, it is coherent and simple).
So please do not be showing him how that very same housebuilding policy is in fact being enacted by the arch-enemy.
I can't help feeling that having been consistently over optimistic in it's first couple of years they were determined to be pessimistic this time in the slightly naive belief this would help their "credibility".
This stuff is quite hard and there are lots of ways you could get systematic errors in one direction, especially if you have to use consistent, objective measures that you had to decide on in advance, rather than being able to say, "This gave us this number, but it seems too big, and it's probably going wrong because of X".
For comparison, this is Yglesias on the US job reports. For example, he reckons that they understate employment when the economy is growing, because they get their data from a survey of companies, but when the economy is growing new companies are opening up, and they can't survey them yet because they don't know they exist. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/06/jobs_report_how_to_read_one.html
Oh yes, it is a well known and recognised phenomena that economists are most likely to get their forecasts wrong at inflection points in the economy. Economists (sweeping generalisation here) always underestimate how much their forecasts are based on ceteris paribus.
The source of growth this year is rather mysterious. Exports are not doing any better. The north sea continues to disappoint. Real earnings have been falling. The deficit is, at best, not a positive force. There is no evidence that QE is really working. Lending to business continues to fall month on month. The EZ continues to discourage investment.
But employment has continued to grow and the great British consumer seems to have had enough and cut their savings rate to very low levels. Hard to see that because it is partly an irrational response.
On balance I would prefer the OBR to be cautious and for surprises to be on the upside but it does have to be recognised that there is potential for policy errors on both sides of the balance.
To be fair, probably the majority of predictions are 'like the past, only more so', with most of the rest being 'like the past, only less so'.
That has the considerable attraction of saying exactly what I was saying in considerably fewer words.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
If you ignore the lack of housebuilding before and after the last govt, yes it's solely a New Labour problem. But outside of you and one or two other of the stragglers nobody thinks housing issues in this country are the preserve of one decade or one party.
Dear tim,
Whenever you make statements such as "before and after the last govt" or "both parties are to blame", suspicion wells up in my barometer of scepticism.
So off I go to the house build statistics to see what you are failing to mention. And look what I find:
House Building: Local Government Permanent dwellings started -------------------------------------------------- Labour Governments (1997-2001,2001-2005,2005-2010) 1997 120 1998 130 1999 20 2000 160 2001 90 2002 40 2003 20 2004 - 2005 - 2006 10 2007 30 2008 430 2009 250 2010 540 ----------- Total 1,840 ----- -------------------------------------------------- Coalition Government (2010-) 2011 3,090 2012 1,340* 2012 1,550**
----------- Total 5,980 ----- * Includes figures for England only ** Forecast figures for England only
So the Coalition Government in its first year in office has started more local government builds than the previous Labour governments did in their entire thirteen years in office.
So now I know. That is what tim means by "both parties are to blame" for the housing shortage problem.
Tim can look after himself Avery but are you really claiming that all of the houses built in 2011 would have gone through planning and ordering under the Coalition? I somewhat doubt it.
In any event these are really derisory numbers of houses given the need which is his main point and with which I agree, even if I disagree about how to address it.
Egypt is circling the bowl today. They import well over 50% of the calories they consume and are very nearly out of forex, and kept in cash only by the short term generosity of other countries in the region. Their main source of forex is tourism, which has unsurprisingly collapsed in the wake of them choosing an Islamist government and all the violence. Ethiopia is building a dam on the upper Nile so they'll become critically short of water soon enough too. Where the hell do they go from here?
my point is that the consensus on housing in this country has involved all parties and needs to be broken in 2015
Really, because your countless posts about "housing benefit junkies" in the Tory party may have led some to believe you thought that the Tories in particular were responsible for ramping up the cost of housing benefit. A belief that might have been shaken by figures showing that average eligible private sector rents rose by 45% in real terms under 10 years of Labour government while they have actually fallen under the Tories.
Still, I trust all of pbc will be relieved to hear that your references to housing benefit junkies actually refer to all parties (even if it looks more appropriate to Labour than the others).
Tim has been pretty consistent in criticising both Labour and Tory governments for the housing crisis we face in this country. That the current government is going to carry on ramping up expenditure on housing benefit does rather imply that labelling them junkies is pretty apt. Labour were too. The solution, clearly, is a lot more building; which is something else he has said on innumerable occasions.
-The Labour Govt was spending more than 40% GDP total pre-crash, as long as you ignore the fact that they were spending 40% GDP and make up some numbers instead.
-The housing benefit bill is coming down, as long as you ignore the fact that the housing benefit bill is going up.
my point is that the consensus on housing in this country has involved all parties and needs to be broken in 2015
Really, because your countless posts about "housing benefit junkies" in the Tory party may have led some to believe you thought that the Tories in particular were responsible for ramping up the cost of housing benefit. A belief that might have been shaken by figures showing that average eligible private sector rents rose by 45% in real terms under 10 years of Labour government while they have actually fallen under the Tories.
Still, I trust all of pbc will be relieved to hear that your references to housing benefit junkies actually refer to all parties (even if it looks more appropriate to Labour than the others).
Housing benefit in the last year of the Labour govt was £20 Billion.
So you can find a bit of data to tell us that HB individual claims have dropped (with the big London caveat) by a tiny amount, but the totals haven't.
According to ONS stats, in February this year there were 5,078,523 individual housing benefit recipients; 854,015 of whom were in London. That's over 15% of the total.
my point is that the consensus on housing in this country has involved all parties and needs to be broken in 2015
Really, because your countless posts about "housing benefit junkies" in the Tory party may have led some to believe you thought that the Tories in particular were responsible for ramping up the cost of housing benefit. A belief that might have been shaken by figures showing that average eligible private sector rents rose by 45% in real terms under 10 years of Labour government while they have actually fallen under the Tories.
Still, I trust all of pbc will be relieved to hear that your references to housing benefit junkies actually refer to all parties (even if it looks more appropriate to Labour than the others).
Housing benefit in the last year of the Labour govt was £20 Billion.
What was it in the first year of the Labour govt ? 1997 ?
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
If you ignore the lack of housebuilding before and after the last govt, yes it's solely a New Labour problem. But outside of you and one or two other of the stragglers nobody thinks housing issues in this country are the preserve of one decade or one party.
Dear tim,
Whenever you make statements such as "before and after the last govt" or "both parties are to blame", suspicion wells up in my barometer of scepticism.
So off I go to the house build statistics to see what you are failing to mention. And look what I find:
House Building: Local Government Permanent dwellings started -------------------------------------------------- Labour Governments (1997-2001,2001-2005,2005-2010) 1997 120 1998 130 1999 20 2000 160 2001 90 2002 40 2003 20 2004 - 2005 - 2006 10 2007 30 2008 430 2009 250 2010 540 ----------- Total 1,840 ----- -------------------------------------------------- Coalition Government (2010-) 2011 3,090 2012 1,340* 2012 1,550**
----------- Total 5,980 ----- * Includes figures for England only ** Forecast figures for England only
So the Coalition Government in its first year in office has started more local government builds than the previous Labour governments did in their entire thirteen years in office.
So now I know. That is what tim means by "both parties are to blame" for the housing shortage problem.
Tim can look after himself Avery but are you really claiming that all of the houses built in 2011 would have gone through planning and ordering under the Coalition? I somewhat doubt it.
In any event these are really derisory numbers of houses given the need which is his main point and with which I agree, even if I disagree about how to address it.
These are stats for housing starts, David. I mistakenly titled the chart "completions" until I recognised the error and edited it.
Having said that, I was expecting the number of post crisis housing starts under Labour to be higher than they were given the completions total in 2010.
About half the number are coming from Scotland (1,440 in 2010 compared to 3,110 total). No starts in NI and minimal activity in Wales (20). [3,110 vs, 3,090 is a difference arising from dates of the source documents].
We are talking small numbers because the share of Local Authority builds is tiny, under 1% of all new build starts between 1996 and 2010.Housing Association builds in the same period varied from just over 9.0% to just over 22%, averaging 14% or around 25,500 per year.
Private Enterprise builds in the same period varied between just over 77% to just over 90%, averaging 85% or 160,000 dwellings.
Peak build for all tenures was 226,420 in 2007 and trough was 141,920 in 2010. House building in the last sixty years peaked in 1968 at 425,830 (53% Private Enterprise, 4% Housing Association, 43% Local Government].
What possible appeal could a locally born councillor have against the London born, privately educated (Haberdasher Aske's), ICADE alumna with a Masters from Birkbeck, and former Management Consultant (Accenture), the fragrant Ms Berger?
If anyone knows what makes Wavertree tick, or the day to day lives of her constituents - its surely must be Sion Simon's former squeeze....
I think it was very thoughtful of Ms Berger to spend £5,000 on her own number plate- LU51ANA - presumably so her constituents could recognise her when she's out and about in Wavertree.
Youll see not only is the projected spend higher every year, it's £10 billion per year higher for the next few years than it was for most of Labours period in office.
Well that's what happens when the housing benefit junkies in the Labour party allow eligible private rents to soar 45% in real terms in 10 years, tim!
See my reply to DavidL, but there is no real evidence of Housing Association starts being ramped up post crisis.
Basically Labour were relying almost wholly on Private Enterprise to supply new builds (90.6% of total in 2003 was peak, 77.3% in 2009 was trough). The fall in private sector builds from 2007 to 2010 was near 50%, from 198,480 to 106,060.
[Note: these figures are completions rather than starts].
I love the way tim blames the incoming government for every case where there's a legacy of a problem which has been growing for years under Labour, on the basis that the coalition hasn't instantly reversed the trend. It's like the captain of an cruise liner deliberately navigating the ship at full steam ahead towards a reef, handing over to a colleague when the reef is only a short distance away, and then blaming him for the fact that the ship is heading for a reef.
-The Labour Govt was spending more than 40% GDP total pre-crash, as long as you ignore the fact that they were spending 40% GDP and make up some numbers instead.
-The housing benefit bill is coming down, as long as you ignore the fact that the housing benefit bill is going up.
If that's what you think you learnt, then you need to stop throwing spit balls from the back of the class and pay attention in school.
What you would have learnt, had you been paying attention, is that you need to ensure that figures are normalised if you want to make an objective and helpful assessment of the economic situation.
If GDP falls by 8% because it wasn't sustainable, but the size of the government share of the economy doesn't fall, then it is misleading to look at the peak GDP year as the basis of a comparison of the size of the government
I think it was very thoughtful of Ms Berger to spend £5,000 on her own number plate- LU51ANA - presumably so her constituents could recognise her when she's out and about in Wavertree.
"She has swapped the black Toyota Yaris – with the plate LU51 ANA – for a four-year-old red Toyota Aygo believed to belong to her brother Alex, 26. The Yaris has mostly been back at her parents’ £750,000 home in North-West London.
It is believed the swap dates to when she began campaigning to become the candidate for the safe Wavertree seat last year. She was selected in January.
She has already suffered embarrassment after it was divulged she did not know who Bill Shankly was or who sang Ferry Cross The Mersey."
Lefty party stops laughing at anti EU threat - sounds familiar.
"The Socialists had thought the rising star of Marine Le Pen would work to their advantage, splitting the Right. Now they discern a deadly threat."
Also sounding familiar..
"Mrs Le Pen said her first order of business on setting foot in the Elysee Palace will be to announce a referendum on EU membership, "rendez vous" one year later. "I will negotiate over the points on which there can be no compromise. If the result is inadequate, I will call for withdrawal," she said."
She has already suffered embarrassment after it was divulged she did not know who Bill Shankly was
We dont like it when politicians dont know about football and we dont like it when they pretend they like football. Are we moving to a stage where only football fans can run for office?
She has already suffered embarrassment after it was divulged she did not know who Bill Shankly was
We dont like it when politicians dont know about football and we dont like it when they pretend they like football. Are we moving to a stage where only football fans can run for office?
I can think of a thousand reasons why I wouldn't want her as my MP - that isn't one of them
She has already suffered embarrassment after it was divulged she did not know who Bill Shankly was
We dont like it when politicians dont know about football and we dont like it when they pretend they like football. Are we moving to a stage where only football fans can run for office?
We don't like politicians who are parachuted in and can't be arsed to do their homework....
They are projecting they'll be spending £4 Billion per year more than they inherited in 2017/8, your definition of "instant" is positively tantric.
For comparison - the increase in the equivalent period up to when they took office was £8.4bn. Over twice as much. All down to housing benefit junkies in the Labour party.
Lefty party stops laughing at anti EU threat - sounds familiar.
"The Socialists had thought the rising star of Marine Le Pen would work to their advantage, splitting the Right. Now they discern a deadly threat."
Also sounding familiar..
"Mrs Le Pen said her first order of business on setting foot in the Elysee Palace will be to announce a referendum on EU membership, "rendez vous" one year later. "I will negotiate over the points on which there can be no compromise. If the result is inadequate, I will call for withdrawal," she said."
She looks a lot more likely to make it to the Elysee than her dad ever did. Whilst still on the nutter scale she is nearer the bottom end.
Both the traditional parties in France seem to be in utter chaos and have no answers to the crises that France is now facing. Simplistic nostrums such as bringing back the franc are going to get a hearing given the lack of an alternative.
She has already suffered embarrassment after it was divulged she did not know who Bill Shankly was
We dont like it when politicians dont know about football and we dont like it when they pretend they like football. Are we moving to a stage where only football fans can run for office?
Surely we should always have had a situation in which only football fans feel qualifed to talk about football in anything beyond "Well done/bad luck England, Scotland, Wales, NI" terms. If you are not interested just stay shtum or - shock horror - say you are not interested. The world will not fall in. Equally, why on earth middle aged politicians pretend to like today's chart music is beyond me. It's just embarrassing. Surely most people understand that most middle aged men and women have absolutely no idea about modern music. Jim Callaghan never felt the need to pretend to have the Motors latest 45; Mrs T didn't think she had to say she had Mel and Kim on her Sony Walkman.
They are projecting they'll be spending £4 Billion per year more than they inherited in 2017/8, your definition of "instant" is positively tantric.
For comparison - the increase in the equivalent period up to when they took office was £8.4bn. Over twice as much. All down to housing benefit junkies in the Labour party.
So a bit like the debt - its rising but not as bad as when those useless muppets in the Labour party were running the show.
Because the fact of the matter is that total Government spending was 39% of GDP in 07, 40% in 08.
Do you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, and think through implications of your argument that the "real" level of GDP was lower than stated during that time, or shift your argument to something based more on, you know, reality and stuff?
Comments
I also wonder how much the internet influences this, amplifying the voice of those who would have been roundly ignored and quickly forgotten in the past.
Also: come on Laura!
First, the Bank of England reports that approvals for mortgages on house purchases were at their highest for three years in May 2013, indicating a revival in the housing sales market spurred on by the Treasury's market support schemes.
Second, Markit reports that the UK's Manufacturing PMI has risen to 52.5, its highest level since the second quarter of 2011, with production and new orders up and intermediate stocks down all promising sustained recovery for the rest of this year.
Third, the day after Danny Alexander justified his long term investment plans on the Andrew Marr show by saying:
“What I’ve announced is our plans going out to 2020, providing precisely the sort of long-term certainty that investors in the private sector say that they need in order to gear up to deliver the sort of infrastructure this country needs.”,
up pops the Kuwait Investment Authority to announce that it intends to invest as much as $5 billion in infrastructure assets mainly in the UK in the next three to five years.
Enough to silence even tim.
The only reason to effectively disenfranchise the non-Labour supporting 42% would be to take a run at getting rid of Luciana Berger....
...hmmh... on second thoughts...
EDIT: Harry - just read the Echo story. LibDems not running a candidate (probably just trying to save money and effort). You may want to update the thread
Pressed on whose decision it was to make the donation in shares, Mr Mills said he did not have enough spare money to make a cash donation worth £1.65m and the conclusion came out of discussions with the party on the most effective way of ensuring a steady flow of support for Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23132225
So that's all right then. Presumably the same argument would apply if he was trying to buy a yacht costing £1.65m but didn't have enough spare cash to do so.
On topic: Yes, but... is this Jake Morrision chappie well-enough established to do serious damage to Labour? He looks about sixteen, which suggests not, but others may have a better insight.
Still - when a party stands for government knows best on an national level and doesn't trust the voters with a say on Europe it should be no surprise it doesn't trust local party members to pick candidates.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209675/impact-private-rent-growth-housing-benefit-expenditure.pdf
If he has, his chances of electoral success may be enhanced.
So you could try to change the subject?
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/UKIP-breakthrough-West-Kent-election-results/story-18881543-detail/story.html#axzz2XnmPfLhh
"UKIP has taken the Conservative seat of Tunbridge Wells East, the former seat of the highly popular Kevin Lynes, who died suddenly last year."
The very strong increase in mortgage applications we are now seeing suggests to me that the option of buying is becoming more available again and that the majority have worked out it is usually cheaper to do so if you can afford to pay the mortgage. This should take some pressure off the let sector but is unlikely to have such a significant effect as the change of entitlement in the short run.
Despite all the predictions of doom there is very little evidence to support the hypothesis of HB spiraling out of control.
Their March EFO will probably go down in history as one of the most inaccurate forecasts of economic performance by an independent body set up solely and wholly for the purpose of making economic forecasts.
I am convinced Robert Chote had his breakfast orange juices spiked at the Old Compton Street branch of Patisserie Valerie when preparing the figures.
"And, in a surprise development, the Lib Dems have said they will not field a candidate in order to give Cllr Morrison a clear run against Miss Berger."
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-councillor-jake-morrison-quits-4704016
If anyone knows what makes Wavertree tick, or the day to day lives of her constituents - its surely must be Sion Simon's former squeeze....
"With the economy entering 2013 with somewhat less momentum than we expected in December, a weaker outlook for consumer spending, business investment and exports has prompted us to revise down our near-term growth forecasts to 0.6 per cent this year and 1.8 per cent in 2014."
I can't help feeling that having been consistently over optimistic in it's first couple of years they were determined to be pessimistic this time in the slightly naive belief this would help their "credibility".
I think there are very good odds that their forecast for this year will be out by a factor of 3.
In this instance (as in Blaenau Gwent recently), the choice is between an official Labour candidate and what in effect is an Independent Labour candidate. While it's possible that the Independent may sweep up some of the anti-Labour votes, firstly, I don't think that this is the sort of Ind Lab that's likely to win anyway and secondly, the similarities in policy stance mean that it would be wrong to disenfranchise those voters who want to support a centre or centre-right party if the Lib Dems and Conservatives were to stand down.
As an aside, were the Yellows and Blues to leave the field in Wavertree, the prime beneficiaries may be the Purples rather than the differently Reds.
The facts show that HB spending has gone up. A forecast from the DWP says it may go down. A forecast from the OBR says that it will go up. We will have to see who is correct.
I've read a little about this in the Echo from time to time but there are a few differences from the other examples OGH quotes. Yes, she is 'posh totty' parachuted in from London but he's still only twenty, without a lot of experience in politics. The Peoples' Republic of Judea springs to mind but I suspect Ms Berger will still be MP in 2015.
Not sure there's any point, I doubt very much that Mr Morrisson has any appeal to Tory or Liberal voters, who would be disenfranchised if they were denied official candidates. Unlike Tatton there is no cross-party issue here. Just tactics.
If he had written "There has been speculation that..." I would agree with you
thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbert_Wolfe
'‘crisis just around the corner’.
New Labour's housing legacy.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing
Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that
around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent
growth over the previous ten years
For comparison, this is Yglesias on the US job reports. For example, he reckons that they understate employment when the economy is growing, because they get their data from a survey of companies, but when the economy is growing new companies are opening up, and they can't survey them yet because they don't know they exist.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/06/jobs_report_how_to_read_one.html
It does not mean that HB is falling per se, nor that the total number of claims is reducing. The Housing market would indicate that they are increasing as the number of people renting is increasing but that might be about to change.
Because of the rate at which it is changing my guess would be that the OBR have been as overly pessimistic about this as they were about growth but this document really does not help in that. It is simply a calculation of another part of the cost of electing Labour governments.
'Yes, she is 'posh totty' parachuted in from London'
Yes, a privately educated toff complete with personalized car number to make her feel important, delivered courtesy of the New Labour aristocracy.
I can accept crap journalism, thought, because I don't really care one way or another. Thought it was a cute way to save a bit of money and distraction though...
'If you ignore the lack of housebuilding before and after the last govt, yes it's solely a New Labour problem.'
Which other government was in power for 13 years,allowed 3-4 million immigrants to come into the country and preside over the worst social house building program since the second world war?.
'Genuine question: what changes did the last government make to housing benefit payments?'
Introduced a bedroom tax in the private sector rental market.
The source of growth this year is rather mysterious. Exports are not doing any better. The north sea continues to disappoint. Real earnings have been falling. The deficit is, at best, not a positive force. There is no evidence that QE is really working. Lending to business continues to fall month on month. The EZ continues to discourage investment.
But employment has continued to grow and the great British consumer seems to have had enough and cut their savings rate to very low levels. Hard to see that because it is partly an irrational response.
On balance I would prefer the OBR to be cautious and for surprises to be on the upside but it does have to be recognised that there is potential for policy errors on both sides of the balance.
Concerned of Bournemouth.
If I remember correctly, there was a lot of talk about Ricky Tomlinson standing against Berger at the last election. Had he gone through with it, I suspect he would have won.
Only a few weeks ago, I saw him opening the Clitheroe beer festival. Nice as it was, he could have been at the HoC supping for England
However, to make up for your disappointment I am more than willing to bet you that the average private sector eligible rent will grow less in real terms under the "housing benefit junkies" in the Tory party than it did in either of the last two terms of Labour.
That's slightly more related to the topic under discussion, dont you agree?
£50 at evens?
"The transition from the old housing benefit system to Local Housing Allowance significantly increased payments available for larger houses in some areas, as can be seen by comparing the Local Reference Rent calculated by the Valuation Office Agency, which served as the basis for determining the old housing benefit, against the current Local Housing Allowance. As an example, the Local Reference Rent for the largest type of house in the East Thames Valley locality in March 2009 was £328.85 per week, while the Local Housing Allowance for a similar property in the same area was £646.15 per week, an increase of £16,500 per year."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Housing_Allowance
The "bedroom tax" is an attempt, arguably misguided, to try and recoup some of that. In 2008 there were further changes which introduced a bedroom tax into the private sector but also allowed a large range of what were called extended payments for which recipients could qualify in many areas.
What I would say was there biggest fault, however, is largely one of default. The 2002 regulations introduced broader area calculations for entitlements which reflected the going rate in an area rather than what the individual property was worth. This had the effect of driving up the rents in the poorer properties to the maximum level for that area, enormously increasing the cost to the tax payer. It also set a floor with the premium properties getting more from those not on benefits creating a new and higher floor. In effect the taxpayer ended up bidding against itself driving rents ever upwards.
This is why the changes which fixed HB at the bottom 30% in any area were so important, so much more important than this bedroom nonsense. This is taking the driver of public money out of rents and replacing it with a downward pressure instead. Not good for buy to let landlords, very good for the rest of us.
Whenever you make statements such as "before and after the last govt" or "both parties are to blame", suspicion wells up in my barometer of scepticism.
So off I go to the house build statistics to see what you are failing to mention. And look what I find: So the Coalition Government in its first year in office has started more local government builds than the previous Labour governments did in their entire thirteen years in office.
So now I know. That is what tim means by "both parties are to blame" for the housing shortage problem.
Still, I trust all of pbc will be relieved to hear that your references to housing benefit junkies actually refer to all parties (even if it looks more appropriate to Labour than the others).
So please do not be showing him how that very same housebuilding policy is in fact being enacted by the arch-enemy.
In any event these are really derisory numbers of houses given the need which is his main point and with which I agree, even if I disagree about how to address it.
-The Labour Govt was spending more than 40% GDP total pre-crash, as long as you ignore the fact that they were spending 40% GDP and make up some numbers instead.
-The housing benefit bill is coming down, as long as you ignore the fact that the housing benefit bill is going up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-and-council-tax-benefit-caseload-statistics-published-from-november-2008-to-present
Having said that, I was expecting the number of post crisis housing starts under Labour to be higher than they were given the completions total in 2010.
About half the number are coming from Scotland (1,440 in 2010 compared to 3,110 total). No starts in NI and minimal activity in Wales (20). [3,110 vs, 3,090 is a difference arising from dates of the source documents].
We are talking small numbers because the share of Local Authority builds is tiny, under 1% of all new build starts between 1996 and 2010.Housing Association builds in the same period varied from just over 9.0% to just over 22%, averaging 14% or around 25,500 per year.
Private Enterprise builds in the same period varied between just over 77% to just over 90%, averaging 85% or 160,000 dwellings.
Peak build for all tenures was 226,420 in 2007 and trough was 141,920 in 2010. House building in the last sixty years peaked in 1968 at 425,830 (53% Private Enterprise, 4% Housing Association, 43% Local Government].
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/david-cameron-hasnt-spoken-about-climate-change-three-years-time-running-out
I wonder why she left it in London?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257810/The-numbers-Labour-candidates-working-class-credentials-hit-buys-5-000-numberplate.html
Basically Labour were relying almost wholly on Private Enterprise to supply new builds (90.6% of total in 2003 was peak, 77.3% in 2009 was trough). The fall in private sector builds from 2007 to 2010 was near 50%, from 198,480 to 106,060.
[Note: these figures are completions rather than starts].
What you would have learnt, had you been paying attention, is that you need to ensure that figures are normalised if you want to make an objective and helpful assessment of the economic situation.
If GDP falls by 8% because it wasn't sustainable, but the size of the government share of the economy doesn't fall, then it is misleading to look at the peak GDP year as the basis of a comparison of the size of the government
It is believed the swap dates to when she began campaigning to become the candidate for the safe Wavertree seat last year. She was selected in January.
She has already suffered embarrassment after it was divulged she did not know who Bill Shankly was or who sang Ferry Cross The Mersey."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10151286/Frances-triumphant-Joan-of-Arc-vows-to-bring-back-franc-and-destroy-euro.html
Lefty party stops laughing at anti EU threat - sounds familiar.
"The Socialists had thought the rising star of Marine Le Pen would work to their advantage, splitting the Right. Now they discern a deadly threat."
Also sounding familiar..
"Mrs Le Pen said her first order of business on setting foot in the Elysee Palace will be to announce a referendum on EU membership, "rendez vous" one year later. "I will negotiate over the points on which there can be no compromise. If the result is inadequate, I will call for withdrawal," she said."
Both the traditional parties in France seem to be in utter chaos and have no answers to the crises that France is now facing. Simplistic nostrums such as bringing back the franc are going to get a hearing given the lack of an alternative.
The PMIs for France this morning showed that industry was still contracting there and has been for a very long time. 48.4 (where 50 is stable) was a 16 month high. http://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/Page.mvc/PressReleases
Who'd want them back ?
Reality is "misleading?"
Because the fact of the matter is that total Government spending was 39% of GDP in 07, 40% in 08.
Do you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, and think through implications of your argument that the "real" level of GDP was lower than stated during that time, or shift your argument to something based more on, you know, reality and stuff?