FPT though - I find it astonishing that Unite has members that vote Tory - what on earth are they thinking!? They should leave Unite immediately.
No doubt they feel unable to do so because the industry they work in somehow expects that allegiance. These people should be freed!
I guess I'm fortunate in that it has never been suggested to me that I might pay for some sink fund for the weak minded which goes against my every principle. However it's clear that at least some union members feel in some way obliged to pay their dues and yet are not at all in agreement with the politics that the union bosses spout.
I think Labour voters should regard this as a real embarrassment.
"David Cameron has known for almost three months that at least one member of his own élite protection unit may have fabricated parts of the Downing Street police log about the confrontation with Andrew Mitchell, The Independent understands."
One near miss on the Scottish monarchy side is James II and then James III and IV
However James II was the younger twin son of James I. The elder son Alexander died some days after birth.
James II was also a second son, to one who died in infancy.
Quite a number of near misses. It shows how rare 1894 and 2013 are.
1894 doesn't count either - George V was also a second son.
To give the answer (boo), as far as I can tell, there haven't been *any* examples of three successive British monarchs, each of whom was the eldest son of their predecessor. If Charles becomes king, followed by William and then the new baby, it will be a first.
There are (at least?) two other examples of the current position - where there are three eldest sons in line (or where one or more has already succeeded), but without them all having been monarch themselves.
One is during the short life of Edward I's eldest son, John, who lived from 1266-71. Edward himself being the eldest son of Henry III who was the first son of King John. The other (less to your taste, I assume) occurred between the birth of the future George III in 1738 and the death of his father, Frederick, in 1751. Frederick broke the chain by predeceasing his father, George II, with George I completing that set.
I should have added a third case: Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and Henry VI's son and heir, Edward of Westminster, who lived from 1453-71 (though 1461-70 should be excluded as Henry VI was deposed between those dates).
Dave's viewing attentiveness seems to vary on a case by case basis. He saw Rihanna and Christina Aguilera on the X Factor and called in the Christian Unions Reg bailey to hold an enquiry. As a father of course
Yes, these claims are a load of Arctic Monkeys. Fair call though.
That'd be great. I wonder if it happened (and clearly it won't) how many little Ethelreds there might be in the years following (we're unready for the tide..). I'm guessing, but I suspect that there have been none for quite a while. I did read though recently (I think in the Times) that there have been several 'Arsenal's (apparently of both sexes) recently, so who knows.
'FPT though - I find it astonishing that Unite has members that vote Tory - what on earth are they thinking!? They should leave Unite immediately.'
And only 10% of Unite members want to join the Labour party,although some of the polling showed how out of touch Labour are with Unite members. Maybe it's the Oxbridge educated multi millionaire leader that's also a turn-off.
Why is the media so sloppy that they keep referring to the new prince as "baby Cambridge"? He has a perfectly good title. As soon as he was born he became the Earl of Strathearn. The normal practice for an eldest son is to take his father's second title as a courtesy title. Prince Edward's son is Viscount Severn. The Duke of Kent's heir is the Earl of St Andrews. The Duke of Gloucester's heir is the Earl of Ulster.
That does not hold when the child born is a royal prince or princess. Had Prince Edward's children not eschewed the title of royal prince or princess, Viscount Severn would be known as Prince James of Wessex. The child is Prince of Cambridge in his own right, not Earl of Strathearn out of courtesy.
The baby is not Prince of Cambridge in his own right.
By the letter patent of 1917 amended by the Queen last year the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales enjoy the titular dignity of Prince/Princess. The baby enjoys the designation "of Cambridge" through his fathers title of Duke of Cambridge.
The title "Prince" is not held as of right but at the discretion of the Sovereign who as the fountain of all honour may allow or revoke the title at will.
An example is the late Duchess of Gloucester who when her husband, the Duke of Gloucester died, would normally have reverted to the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester but was by the Queens will known as HRH Princess Alice despite not being born a Princess of the blood royal.
TIM THANK YOU FOR THE LINK> PLEASE SAVE IT AS THE NEXT TIME YOU POST ABOUT IT I WANT TO SEE THE LINK AGAIN AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT OCCASION YOU POST ABOUT IT> CAN I ALSO REMIND YOU THAT YOU MAY NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES POST ANYTHING ABOUT JEREMY HUNT WITHOUT A 100% LINK NOR MAKE ANY SUBJECTIVE COMMENT ABOUT HIM ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES A SUBJECT THAT PB IS NOT ACCEPTING COMMENTS FOR. I HOPE THIS IS NOW CLEAR.
Good morning everyone. Shaping up to be another cracking day on the American Riviera. Shame I was up into the small hours on a call with some German farmers.
Cyclefree from a couple of threads ago asked why "Arthur" would be too loaded a name. How high do you think expectations would be for King Arthur? (plus the only major recorded Arthur in royal history died a teenager and then his wife married his brother...)
The last Stephen was a homicidal maniac who damn near destroyed England in his bloodlust and search for personal power. Otherwise a good choice ;-)
Well Charles is an even more loaded name so Arthur's fine. Stephen is a lovely name as is Patrick but the latter will be seen as too Irish and /or Catholic. Arthur, Philip, Francis, Stephen are all old-fashioned names that have stood the test of time.
I'm not sure the expectations of King Charles would be as high as King Arthur!
In any event the Prince of Wales will reign as George VII.
It's entirely sensible that any Labour supporter would want their leader to have the best educational background possible. Some philosopher once said an idea is potentially valid no matter it's source. It's pretty hard to dispute that.
What on Earth is going on between Claire Perry and Guido? It looks like a serious tweet war has broken out - she seems to think he's 'sponsored' someone to prank her site with porn... bizarre.
Claire Perry @claire4devizes Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes - proves so clearly what we are dealing with
Claire Perry @claire4devizes That well known responsible campaigner @GuidoFawkes has been hosting a link that distributed porn via my website
TIM THANK YOU FOR THE LINK> PLEASE SAVE IT AS THE NEXT TIME YOU POST ABOUT IT I WANT TO SEE THE LINK AGAIN AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT OCCASION YOU POST ABOUT IT> CAN I ALSO REMIND YOU THAT YOU MAY NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES POST ANYTHING ABOUT JEREMY HUNT WITHOUT A 100% LINK NOR MAKE ANY SUBJECTIVE COMMENT ABOUT HIM ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES A SUBJECT THAT PB IS NOT ACCEPTING COMMENTS FOR. I HOPE THIS IS NOW CLEAR.
Do you need any more links to Rihanna's corset? Sadly there's no footage of Dave springing into action
"Plebgate: David Cameron knew Andrew Mitchell evidence was suspect three months ago"
Posting stories from 7 months ago about an allegation 10 months old?
Desperate, much?
Why don't you return to telling us how clever Ed is to pick a fight that will be resolved 12 months ahead of a GE - and regale us with the polling figuresp showing he's not "weak"?
Why is the media so sloppy that they keep referring to the new prince as "baby Cambridge"? He has a perfectly good title. As soon as he was born he became the Earl of Strathearn. The normal practice for an eldest son is to take his father's second title as a courtesy title. Prince Edward's son is Viscount Severn. The Duke of Kent's heir is the Earl of St Andrews. The Duke of Gloucester's heir is the Earl of Ulster.
But wouldn't that leave Prince William without a Scottish title? I'm not sure that it would work in the normal way in these circumstances.
No Charles. The Duke of Cambridge retains the substantive title Earl of Srathearn but the baby uses it as a courtesy title.
One other point when the Prince of Wales becomes king then Prince William will be both Duke and Earl of Strathearn.
Thank you Jack, I assume like me, you are a distant cousin of the little fellow? You however will be related through the Jacobite Tory line whereas I am related through dodgy Hanoverian Whig lines
To think I have to rely on Lancaster and Tudor ;-)
Meanwhile, The Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski tweeted his congrats to William Hague?
Congratulations, @WilliamJHague, on the arrival of boy Wales/Cambridge. Polish Anglophiles excited and happy for you. Retweeted by William Hague
I liked this one
" Social media continued to whir, with 25,300 tweets a minute about the birth. Thousands shared the cover of the new Private Eye (headline: “WOMAN HAS BABY”). But pity the poor minion responsible for the official Twitter account of the government of Guernsey. “Congratulations to the Duchess of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales on the birth of their baby.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10197944/Royal-baby-sketch-Lost-outside-the-Lindo.html
Why is the media so sloppy that they keep referring to the new prince as "baby Cambridge"? He has a perfectly good title. As soon as he was born he became the Earl of Strathearn. The normal practice for an eldest son is to take his father's second title as a courtesy title. Prince Edward's son is Viscount Severn. The Duke of Kent's heir is the Earl of St Andrews. The Duke of Gloucester's heir is the Earl of Ulster.
But wouldn't that leave Prince William without a Scottish title? I'm not sure that it would work in the normal way in these circumstances.
No Charles. The Duke of Cambridge retains the substantive title Earl of Srathearn but the baby uses it as a courtesy title.
One other point when the Prince of Wales becomes king then Prince William will be both Duke and Earl of Strathearn.
Thank you Jack, I assume like me, you are a distant cousin of the little fellow? You however will be related through the Jacobite Tory line whereas I am related through dodgy Hanoverian Whig lines
To think I have to rely on Lancaster and Tudor ;-)
"Alex Salmond has been warned about making exaggerated claims about the potential benefits of North Sea oil to an independent Scotland after asserting that future reserves are worth £300,000 a head for every Scot."
To think I have to rely on Lancaster and Tudor ;-)
So are you going to play your claim on the throne on those grounds? I suspect that anyone with half a claim could easily depose HMQ. A mere appeal to Europe should do the trick.
'FPT though - I find it astonishing that Unite has members that vote Tory - what on earth are they thinking!? They should leave Unite immediately.'
And only 10% of Unite members want to join the Labour party,although some of the polling showed how out of touch Labour are with Unite members. Maybe it's the Oxbridge educated multi millionaire leader that's also a turn-off.
Though 10% of Unite members equals 150,000 , at £40 p.a. membership that's not to be sneezed at.
Not sure why we start numbering with the Norman Conquest, although there would be problems deciding when to start (Egbert? Edward the Elder? Athelstan?). Also we would get our Edwards mixed up as the next one should be XII.
How about Cnut III?
And I really hope Charles opts for Charles III. Chosing a regnal name other than the one you are known by seems a silly Continental affectation.
Why is the media so sloppy that they keep referring to the new prince as "baby Cambridge"? He has a perfectly good title. As soon as he was born he became the Earl of Strathearn. The normal practice for an eldest son is to take his father's second title as a courtesy title. Prince Edward's son is Viscount Severn. The Duke of Kent's heir is the Earl of St Andrews. The Duke of Gloucester's heir is the Earl of Ulster.
But wouldn't that leave Prince William without a Scottish title? I'm not sure that it would work in the normal way in these circumstances.
No Charles. The Duke of Cambridge retains the substantive title Earl of Srathearn but the baby uses it as a courtesy title.
One other point when the Prince of Wales becomes king then Prince William will be both Duke and Earl of Strathearn.
Thank you Jack, I assume like me, you are a distant cousin of the little fellow? You however will be related through the Jacobite Tory line whereas I am related through dodgy Hanoverian Whig lines
To think I have to rely on Lancaster and Tudor ;-)
To think I have to rely on Lancaster and Tudor ;-)
So are you going to play your claim on the throne on those grounds? I suspect that anyone with half a claim could easily depose HMQ. A mere appeal to Europe should do the trick.
Going for the throne of France (via St. Louis) would be more fun ;-)
Ribaldry aside - I don't recall this level of global interest in the arrival of Prince William - the Olympics, Will & Kate, Brenda's service - what's changed?
Ribaldry aside - I don't recall this level of global interest in the arrival of Prince William - the Olympics, Will & Kate, Brenda's service - what's changed?
Ribaldry aside - I don't recall this level of global interest in the arrival of Prince William - the Olympics, Will & Kate, Brenda's service - what's changed?
Chancellor warned 'mad' Help-to-Buy scheme could drive up house prices
The Chancellor's allies dismissed the IoD's criticism as "hysterical" and "publicity-seeking." But it echoed previous warnings about the possible impact on house prices by Lord King, the recently-departed Governor of the Bank of England, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund. Lord King said the scheme was "too close for comfort" to a general guarantee for mortgages.
Not sure why we start numbering with the Norman Conquest, although there would be problems deciding when to start (Egbert? Edward the Elder? Athelstan?). Also we would get our Edwards mixed up as the next one should be XII.
How about Cnut III?
And I really hope Charles opts for Charles III. Chosing a regnal name other than the one you are known by seems a silly Continental affectation.
Charles should pass it by. Doing so would transform him from unloved wannabe to a man of real character. If there is ever another King known by a name other then his own I'll eat my hat.
Even if only 10% of UNITE members join Labour that would still give them a bigger membership than the Tories just from that 1 source (or 5 times UKIPs for that matter). Not sure why that would be such a disaster
Chancellor warned 'mad' Help-to-Buy scheme could drive up house prices
The Chancellor's allies dismissed the IoD's criticism as "hysterical" and "publicity-seeking." But it echoed previous warnings about the possible impact on house prices by Lord King, the recently-departed Governor of the Bank of England, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund. Lord King said the scheme was "too close for comfort" to a general guarantee for mortgages.
King supported the Help to Buy and Funding for Lending Schemes. His concern was about ease of exiting the intervention not the intervention itself.
As the guarantee schemes are self-liquidating (they apply only to repayment mortgages where the 14.25% of principal guaranteed is paid off in the first seven years of a 25 year term), the concern is about withdrawing new offers.
This criticism is self-contradictory though.
If the scheme results in an above inflation house price bubble then this can be corrected by terminating the scheme with the impact being reducing house prices to normal growth levels.
If the scheme fails to keep house price growth to normal levels then there is no harm in it being continued.
Even if only 10% of UNITE members join Labour that would still give them a bigger membership than the Tories just from that 1 source (or 5 times UKIPs for that matter). Not sure why that would be such a disaster
Ashcroft didn't ask if they would join for £40 - they only pay £8 now. Same as the fat cat leaders pay - not much fairness there.
"Alex Salmond has been warned about making exaggerated claims about the potential benefits of North Sea oil to an independent Scotland after asserting that future reserves are worth £300,000 a head for every Scot."
Chancellor warned 'mad' Help-to-Buy scheme could drive up house prices
The Chancellor's allies dismissed the IoD's criticism as "hysterical" and "publicity-seeking." But it echoed previous warnings about the possible impact on house prices by Lord King, the recently-departed Governor of the Bank of England, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund. Lord King said the scheme was "too close for comfort" to a general guarantee for mortgages.
King supported the Help to Buy and Funding for Lending Schemes. His concern was about ease of exiting the intervention.
As the guarantee schemes are self-liquidating (they apply only to repayment mortgages where the 14.25% of principal guaranteed is paid off in the first seven years of a 25 year term), the concern is about withdrawing new offers.
The criticism is self-contradictory though.
If the scheme results in an above inflation house price bubble then this can be corrected by terminating the scheme with the impact being reducing house prices to normal growth levels.
If the scheme fails to keep house price growth to normal levels then there is no harm in it being continued.
It's a nonsense, and yet another gimmick to make up for the lack of bank reform. At taxpayers' risk of course.
Even if only 10% of UNITE members join Labour that would still give them a bigger membership than the Tories just from that 1 source (or 5 times UKIPs for that matter). Not sure why that would be such a disaster
Good for them too if that's the way they choose to act.
However if even one member of Unite feels compelled to act against their own thoughts then that's a bad thing. It seems there may be some.
Chancellor warned 'mad' Help-to-Buy scheme could drive up house prices
The Chancellor's allies dismissed the IoD's criticism as "hysterical" and "publicity-seeking." But it echoed previous warnings about the possible impact on house prices by Lord King, the recently-departed Governor of the Bank of England, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund. Lord King said the scheme was "too close for comfort" to a general guarantee for mortgages.
King supported the Help to Buy and Funding for Lending Schemes. His concern was about ease of exiting the intervention.
As the guarantee schemes are self-liquidating (they apply only to repayment mortgages where the 14.25% of principal guaranteed is paid off in the first seven years of a 25 year term), the concern is about withdrawing new offers.
The criticism is self-contradictory though.
If the scheme results in an above inflation house price bubble then this can be corrected by terminating the scheme with the impact being reducing house prices to normal growth levels.
If the scheme fails to keep house price growth to normal levels then there is no harm in it being continued.
It's a nonsense, and yet another gimmick to make up for the lack of bank reform. At taxpayers' risk of course.
A twenty percent fall in property prices would require bank interventions which far exceed the 14.25% of principal being guaranteed under the 2014 Help to Buy scheme.
So the idea that the government is increasing its contingent liabilities by launching the scheme doesn't hold water. All the government is doing is quantifying and limiting the scope of its current de facto liabilities.
Chancellor warned 'mad' Help-to-Buy scheme could drive up house prices
The Chancellor's allies dismissed the IoD's criticism as "hysterical" and "publicity-seeking." But it echoed previous warnings about the possible impact on house prices by Lord King, the recently-departed Governor of the Bank of England, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund. Lord King said the scheme was "too close for comfort" to a general guarantee for mortgages.
King supported the Help to Buy and Funding for Lending Schemes. His concern was about ease of exiting the intervention.
As the guarantee schemes are self-liquidating (they apply only to repayment mortgages where the 14.25% of principal guaranteed is paid off in the first seven years of a 25 year term), the concern is about withdrawing new offers.
The criticism is self-contradictory though.
If the scheme results in an above inflation house price bubble then this can be corrected by terminating the scheme with the impact being reducing house prices to normal growth levels.
If the scheme fails to keep house price growth to normal levels then there is no harm in it being continued.
It's a nonsense, and yet another gimmick to make up for the lack of bank reform. At taxpayers' risk of course.
A twenty percent fall in property prices would require bank interventions which far exceed the 14.25% of principal being guaranteed under the 2014 Help to Buy scheme.
So the idea that the government is increasing its contingent liabilities by launching the scheme doesn't hold water. All the government is doing is quantifying and limiting the scope of its current de facto liabilities.
which is simply another way of saying the banks are in bigger poo than anyone cares to admit. So instead of grasping the nettle of a dysfunctional housing market which chokes off cash flows to the productive parts of the economy and long term prosperity, Osborne dicks about with manipulating asset inflation. Pure guff, get us a reformer for CoE.
And thus we have to conclude that the treasury is no longer running UK plc on the basis of a viable financial concern. This is really good news as we are pretty much bust, but really bad news if anyone spots it. However we have plenty of cover - almost all governments are in the same pickle. Happily that means that the money men can't really blow the whistle, as they would then become the 'wise men that once had money' .. Interesting times.
Will @Sun_Politics be Tweeting news of its latest YouGov poll early tonight or will the gap between LAB & CON have got wider?
I think we both know that it's extremely unlikely to have narrowed, bearing in mind yesterdays figures.
But it's nice to see you setting up your pet meme nice and early.
Sunshine.
There is a direct correlation between Sun Tweets giving us early news of their YouGov daily poll and whether the blues are doing well.
After last night 3% LAB lead I for one am interested in knowing whether it was a one-off or the start of a trend.
I think you are being a little harsh.
It's much more likely there is a correlation between interesting news (for the mass public, not us nerds) and the early tweet.
Labour's lead constant or +1/2 over the last few months hasn't been very interesting. If the lead was to jump back to say 8/9 that would be interesting. If it is flat or +1/+2 that's MoE. Arguably if it remains constant that is interesting because it is confirmation (perhaps) of a new level
Will @Sun_Politics be Tweeting news of its latest YouGov poll early tonight or will the gap between LAB & CON have got wider?
I think we both know that it's extremely unlikely to have narrowed, bearing in mind yesterdays figures.
But it's nice to see you setting up your pet meme nice and early.
Sunshine.
There is a direct correlation between Sun Tweets giving us early news of their YouGov daily poll and whether the blues are doing well.
After last night 3% LAB lead I for one am interested in knowing whether it was a one-off or the start of a trend.
I think you are being a little harsh.
It's much more likely there is a correlation between interesting news (for the mass public, not us nerds) and the early tweet.
Labour's lead constant or +1/2 over the last few months hasn't been very interesting. If the lead was to jump back to say 8/9 that would be interesting. If it is flat or +1/+2 that's MoE. Arguably if it remains constant that is interesting because it is confirmation (perhaps) of a new level
Will @Sun_Politics be Tweeting news of its latest YouGov poll early tonight or will the gap between LAB & CON have got wider?
Definitely wider. I would be surprised if it stayed below 5%. YouGov swings too wildly to be anything but noise. I'll stick to the gold standard personally...
A little side-bar on the royal titles issue will be the new creation of dukedom that Prince Harry will most likely enjoy on marriage.
Should that event occur after the Prince of Wales succeeds then normally as second son of the monarch he would usually enjoy the title of Duke of York but the position is filled.
There is nothing any CoE can do to change the consequences of decades of high house price inflation which was then blown up to a burst bubble by Brown in the early noughties.
UK bank balance sheets are carrying £2.4 trillion of mortgage loans, a large proportion of which do not have adequate asset cover (e.g. pre-crisis interest only loans, loans at an LTV ratio exceeding 100%, loans with underperforming endowments, loans with negative equity due to house price falls etc.).
This problem eventually self-heals. For example, there has now been a period of five years when such aggressive loan products have not been marketed by banks, and, existing mortgage loans have been paid down in this period faster than new loans have been taken out. At the same time house prices have stopped falling and, in most areas, have begun to increase in value even if they haven't yet returned to full book value.
The problem is that such rebalancing of risk takes time particularly with loan products of twenty five years term. At the same time political patience with the time needed to self-heal is running out.
Compounding the difficulty is the requirement of regulators that banks increase their capital to provide larger safety buffers to protect against catastrophic falls in asset values (e.g. a property price crash).
Short of the government (i.e. taxpayer) injecting further massive capital sums into the banks, the only way to achieve the recapitalisation needed is for the banks to sell off assets (mostly marketable loan books and non core businesses), to gradually accumulate capital reserves through retained profits and to write down impaired assets to market prices.
All this takes time. Already five years has passed since the banks were bailed out and only Lloyds Bank is near ready for sell-off. The process can be accelerated by further interventions - say a partial buy out of mortgage loan books by the BoE/Treasury - but even massive interventions are not an 'overnight' solution.
If you can suggest a way in which a "reformer CoE" could accelerate the process without massively extending public sector borrowing, fire away. I am all ears.
A little side-bar on the royal titles issue will be the new creation of dukedom that Prince Harry will most likely enjoy on marriage.
Should that event occur after the Prince of Wales succeeds then normally as second son of the monarch he would usually enjoy the title of Duke of York but the position is filled.
Clarence, Suffolk or Sussex might be considered.
Doubt it would be Clarence given the unfortunate history.
Additionally would be a little rude to create a Dukedom over and above Michael Howard's title (Earl of Suffolk & Berkshire).
Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
Political message = "Public money and guarantees should ramp up public housebuilding, not private house prices".
Why is it, tim, that every article I have read criticising Osborne's interventions into the housing and mortgage markets fails to make its case by referring to properly sourced metrics on house prices, mortgage lending and construction figures?
If there is an economic case for a massive increase in social housing construction let's see the facts and figures.
A little side-bar on the royal titles issue will be the new creation of dukedom that Prince Harry will most likely enjoy on marriage.
Should that event occur after the Prince of Wales succeeds then normally as second son of the monarch he would usually enjoy the title of Duke of York but the position is filled.
Clarence, Suffolk or Sussex might be considered.
Doubt it would be Clarence given the unfortunate history.
Additionally would be a little rude to create a Dukedom over and above Michael Howard's title (Earl of Suffolk & Berkshire).
Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
Kendal and Hereford from previous royal dukes might also be considered or some completely new designation :
Lincoln .. Winchester .. Huntingdon .. Shropshire .. Middlesex and of course Harpenden !!
well you've sort of answered your own question, If the bubble was being deflated let it deflate. it's pointless pumping up the Achilles heel of the UK economy. Address the problemn - build more houses to let supply match demand. If need be take property assets of banks balance sheets and use them as a base for a housing program.
As for reform try putting guarantees to the productive parts of the economy rather than asset inflation.
Break up RBS and HBOS and form 12 new retail and commecial banks Improve capital and R&D allowances and reduce energy costs to make onshoring more attractive. Tie benefits to training and incentivise companies to employ "written off" citizens Make all education fees free to train a suitable workforce Get BIS to partner producers and retailers and cut imports Cancel HS2 and upgrade roads, rail and broadband across the country Build a decent airport for London.
A few ideas Mr Pole, much better than needlessly subsidising banks.
A little side-bar on the royal titles issue will be the new creation of dukedom that Prince Harry will most likely enjoy on marriage.
Should that event occur after the Prince of Wales succeeds then normally as second son of the monarch he would usually enjoy the title of Duke of York but the position is filled.
Clarence, Suffolk or Sussex might be considered.
Doubt it would be Clarence given the unfortunate history.
Additionally would be a little rude to create a Dukedom over and above Michael Howard's title (Earl of Suffolk & Berkshire).
Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
Kendal and Hereford from previous royal dukes might also be considered or some completely new designation :
Lincoln .. Winchester .. Huntingdon .. Shropshire .. Middlesex and of course Harpenden !!
There's already an Earl of Lincoln (in Australia), a Marquis of Winchester (in South Africa), an Earl of Shrewsbury (occasionally styled as Shropshire). Middlesex is a possibility (subsumed within Dorset, which became extinct).
Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
well you've sort of answered your own question, If the bubble was being deflated let it deflate. it's pointless pumping up the Achilles heel of the UK economy. Address the problemn - build more houses to let supply match demand. If need be take property assets of banks balance sheets and use them as a base for a housing program.
But Mr Brooke, what the last 5 years have clearly shown us is that deflation of house prices is inimical to house building. If you want builders to build on spec you must have a floor on prices which means a ready supply of credit. This policy will produce far more house building than any viable alternative and at minimal cost to the public purse. Even before the scheme is up and running we are seeing positive effects with house construction leading construction generally out of recession and into growth.
Of course you can have too much of a good thing and we have fallen into this trap in the past but this is a modest scheme which can do real good to the economy and to our housing shortage.
None of this means that your other suggestions are not worth trying as well. Bank reform is particularly urgent and one of the reasons this scheme is necessary in the first place.
1. There is nothing wrong with house price inflation, tim. What is wrong is when house price inflation over a number of economic cycles consistently exceeds general inflation and increases in real incomes.
2. The solution to overpriced housing is either catastrophic falls in market prices (see Spain and Ireland for examples) or a managed decline in overpricing and a soft landing for the linked economies.
Often governments don't have this choice. The collapse of the Spanish and Irish markets and linked economies was forced upon the politicians by the markets.
Such catastrophic events have been avoided in the UK (the markets destroyed the banks not the housing sector). This means that the UK has the opportunity to manage house prices and housing construction over a medium to long period.
Osborne intervened in the housing and mortgage markets because they had become illiquid and the risks of non-intervention (catastrophic house price collapse, failed banks) were higher than those of intervention (an eventual overheating of house price inflation).
You are over-focussing on housing benefit and rent levels, concentrating only on the revenue and expense figures and ignoring asset and loan values. The cost to the government and taxpayer of of subsidising housing should take into account all financial aspects of housing provision.
If rents on social housing do not cover the costs of property construction and management, together with a reasonable profit for a private sector operator, then there a state subsidy exists.
I am not against increasing the construction of social housing to meet housing demand but I would like to see it properly costed, How much would central/local governments need to borrow to fund construction? What would be the rental yield from social tenants? If the rental yield doesn't provide an adequate return on capital employed what is the size of the subsidy from the taxpayer?
Take a look at the recent pamphlet published by the National Housing Federation to see how poorly justified the campaign is for a massive increase in social housing build.
I don't know whether you used to read this forum when Seth O'Logue spent two years trying to explain the benefits of Lansleys various health reforms to the more childlike intellects at the bottom of the PB Tory league.
You haven't even got the support Seth had for this insanity
I remember Seth O. Logue well, tim.
Brilliant poster and tipster.
Kept Pork in acorns for years on his 'Lansley for Leader' tip.
well you've sort of answered your own question, If the bubble was being deflated let it deflate. it's pointless pumping up the Achilles heel of the UK economy. Address the problemn - build more houses to let supply match demand. If need be take property assets of banks balance sheets and use them as a base for a housing program.
But Mr Brooke, what the last 5 years have clearly shown us is that deflation of house prices is inimical to house building. If you want builders to build on spec you must have a floor on prices which means a ready supply of credit. This policy will produce far more house building than any viable alternative and at minimal cost to the public purse. Even before the scheme is up and running we are seeing positive effects with house construction leading construction generally out of recession and into growth.
Of course you can have too much of a good thing and we have fallen into this trap in the past but this is a modest scheme which can do real good to the economy and to our housing shortage.
None of this means that your other suggestions are not worth trying as well. Bank reform is particularly urgent and one of the reasons this scheme is necessary in the first place.
imo it shows nothing of the sort. You can't take a time of consumer depression and call it normal. People still want houses but they remain for many unaffordable due to banking restraints and shortage of supply. Build more houses and reform the banks and when the bubble deflates don't let it inflate again. Mortgages based above the old fashioned 3x earnings are toppy and only lead to asset inflation. If we want builders to commence on spec we would be better underwriting specific housing projects to directly increase supply.
Comments
FPT though - I find it astonishing that Unite has members that vote Tory - what on earth are they thinking!? They should leave Unite immediately.
No doubt they feel unable to do so because the industry they work in somehow expects that allegiance. These people should be freed!
I guess I'm fortunate in that it has never been suggested to me that I might pay for some sink fund for the weak minded which goes against my every principle. However it's clear that at least some union members feel in some way obliged to pay their dues and yet are not at all in agreement with the politics that the union bosses spout.
I think Labour voters should regard this as a real embarrassment.
Hmm, so no actual, you know, evidence then?
'FPT though - I find it astonishing that Unite has members that vote Tory - what on earth are they thinking!? They should leave Unite immediately.'
And only 10% of Unite members want to join the Labour party,although some of the polling showed how out of touch Labour are with Unite members.
Maybe it's the Oxbridge educated multi millionaire leader that's also a turn-off.
By the letter patent of 1917 amended by the Queen last year the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales enjoy the titular dignity of Prince/Princess. The baby enjoys the designation "of Cambridge" through his fathers title of Duke of Cambridge.
The title "Prince" is not held as of right but at the discretion of the Sovereign who as the fountain of all honour may allow or revoke the title at will.
An example is the late Duchess of Gloucester who when her husband, the Duke of Gloucester died, would normally have reverted to the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester but was by the Queens will known as HRH Princess Alice despite not being born a Princess of the blood royal.
THANK YOU FOR THE LINK> PLEASE SAVE IT AS THE NEXT TIME YOU POST ABOUT IT I WANT TO SEE THE LINK AGAIN AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT OCCASION YOU POST ABOUT IT>
CAN I ALSO REMIND YOU THAT YOU MAY NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES POST ANYTHING ABOUT JEREMY HUNT WITHOUT A 100% LINK NOR MAKE ANY SUBJECTIVE COMMENT ABOUT HIM ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES A SUBJECT THAT PB IS NOT ACCEPTING COMMENTS FOR.
I HOPE THIS IS NOW CLEAR.
In any event the Prince of Wales will reign as George VII.
It's entirely sensible that any Labour supporter would want their leader to have the best educational background possible. Some philosopher once said an idea is potentially valid no matter it's source. It's pretty hard to dispute that.
Claire Perry @claire4devizes
Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes - proves so clearly what we are dealing with
Claire Perry @claire4devizes
That well known responsible campaigner @GuidoFawkes has been hosting a link that distributed porn via my website
LOL.
You are soiling a moment of national celebration.
Please desist.
Desperate, much?
Why don't you return to telling us how clever Ed is to pick a fight that will be resolved 12 months ahead of a GE - and regale us with the polling figuresp showing he's not "weak"?
http://www.bild.de/
Congratulations from across the pond to the Duke and Duchess! Wishing you the best of luck and a bit of advice: It Takes a (Royal) Village!
Sean O'Neill @TimesCrime
SOCA has sent a list of 101 names of people and organisations who used "rogue" private investigators to @CommonsHomeAffs
Congratulations, @WilliamJHague, on the arrival of boy Wales/Cambridge. Polish Anglophiles excited and happy for you.
Retweeted by William Hague
"“this is bigger than Clause 4 and One Member One Vote put together”. These reforms fundamentally change our party."
http://labourlist.org/2013/07/nec-report-july-2013/
" Social media continued to whir, with 25,300 tweets a minute about the birth. Thousands shared the cover of the new Private Eye (headline: “WOMAN HAS BABY”). But pity the poor minion responsible for the official Twitter account of the government of Guernsey. “Congratulations to the Duchess of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales on the birth of their baby.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10197944/Royal-baby-sketch-Lost-outside-the-Lindo.html
"Alex Salmond has been warned about making exaggerated claims about the potential benefits of North Sea oil to an independent Scotland after asserting that future reserves are worth £300,000 a head for every Scot."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/23/alex-salmond-north-sea-oil?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Meanwhile, lots of well upholstered people emerge from a door to be followed by some thin people...in blue..
An Anglo-Saxon name would be great, but we've already had an Ethelred II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethelred_the_Unready
Not sure why we start numbering with the Norman Conquest, although there would be problems deciding when to start (Egbert? Edward the Elder? Athelstan?). Also we would get our Edwards mixed up as the next one should be XII.
How about Cnut III?
And I really hope Charles opts for Charles III. Chosing a regnal name other than the one you are known by seems a silly Continental affectation.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BP4NfnFCYAALSMH.jpg:large
Well, it's that or policy....
The Chancellor's allies dismissed the IoD's criticism as "hysterical" and "publicity-seeking." But it echoed previous warnings about the possible impact on house prices by Lord King, the recently-departed Governor of the Bank of England, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund. Lord King said the scheme was "too close for comfort" to a general guarantee for mortgages.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chancellor-warned-mad-helptobuy-scheme-could-drive-up-house-prices-8728895.html
Black nurse in first line. Diane Abbott satisfied.
Productivity going down because all the staff members waiting outside rather than working.
Even if only 10% of UNITE members join Labour that would still give them a bigger membership than the Tories just from that 1 source (or 5 times UKIPs for that matter). Not sure why that would be such a disaster
As the guarantee schemes are self-liquidating (they apply only to repayment mortgages where the 14.25% of principal guaranteed is paid off in the first seven years of a 25 year term), the concern is about withdrawing new offers.
This criticism is self-contradictory though.
If the scheme results in an above inflation house price bubble then this can be corrected by terminating the scheme with the impact being reducing house prices to normal growth levels.
If the scheme fails to keep house price growth to normal levels then there is no harm in it being continued.
However if even one member of Unite feels compelled to act against their own thoughts then that's a bad thing. It seems there may be some.
*chortle*
Satisfied?
But it's nice to see you setting up your pet meme nice and early.
So the idea that the government is increasing its contingent liabilities by launching the scheme doesn't hold water. All the government is doing is quantifying and limiting the scope of its current de facto liabilities.
Most hair by 1st January 2014 :
Baby Cambridge 5/4 fav
Prince William 5/2
William Hague 5/1
Mike Smithson 500/1
http://www.bild.de/unterhaltung/royals/prinz-william/geburt-von-sohn-wir-koennten-nicht-gluecklicher-sein-31501514.bild.html
A prodigy of greatness.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Knut_20070328_mgdtgd.jpg
And thus we have to conclude that the treasury is no longer running UK plc on the basis of a viable financial concern. This is really good news as we are pretty much bust, but really bad news if anyone spots it. However we have plenty of cover - almost all governments are in the same pickle. Happily that means that the money men can't really blow the whistle, as they would then become the 'wise men that once had money' .. Interesting times.
There is a direct correlation between Sun Tweets giving us early news of their YouGov daily poll and whether the blues are doing well.
After last night 3% LAB lead I for one am interested in knowing whether it was a one-off or the start of a trend.
It's much more likely there is a correlation between interesting news (for the mass public, not us nerds) and the early tweet.
Labour's lead constant or +1/2 over the last few months hasn't been very interesting. If the lead was to jump back to say 8/9 that would be interesting. If it is flat or +1/+2 that's MoE. Arguably if it remains constant that is interesting because it is confirmation (perhaps) of a new level
Should that event occur after the Prince of Wales succeeds then normally as second son of the monarch he would usually enjoy the title of Duke of York but the position is filled.
Clarence, Suffolk or Sussex might be considered.
Pure guff, get us a reformer for CoE.
There is nothing any CoE can do to change the consequences of decades of high house price inflation which was then blown up to a burst bubble by Brown in the early noughties.
UK bank balance sheets are carrying £2.4 trillion of mortgage loans, a large proportion of which do not have adequate asset cover (e.g. pre-crisis interest only loans, loans at an LTV ratio exceeding 100%, loans with underperforming endowments, loans with negative equity due to house price falls etc.).
This problem eventually self-heals. For example, there has now been a period of five years when such aggressive loan products have not been marketed by banks, and, existing mortgage loans have been paid down in this period faster than new loans have been taken out. At the same time house prices have stopped falling and, in most areas, have begun to increase in value even if they haven't yet returned to full book value.
The problem is that such rebalancing of risk takes time particularly with loan products of twenty five years term. At the same time political patience with the time needed to self-heal is running out.
Compounding the difficulty is the requirement of regulators that banks increase their capital to provide larger safety buffers to protect against catastrophic falls in asset values (e.g. a property price crash).
Short of the government (i.e. taxpayer) injecting further massive capital sums into the banks, the only way to achieve the recapitalisation needed is for the banks to sell off assets (mostly marketable loan books and non core businesses), to gradually accumulate capital reserves through retained profits and to write down impaired assets to market prices.
All this takes time. Already five years has passed since the banks were bailed out and only Lloyds Bank is near ready for sell-off. The process can be accelerated by further interventions - say a partial buy out of mortgage loan books by the BoE/Treasury - but even massive interventions are not an 'overnight' solution.
If you can suggest a way in which a "reformer CoE" could accelerate the process without massively extending public sector borrowing, fire away. I am all ears.
Additionally would be a little rude to create a Dukedom over and above Michael Howard's title (Earl of Suffolk & Berkshire).
Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
Read article.
"Economists" = Jack Dromey and Lord Oakeshott.
Political message = "Public money and guarantees should ramp up public housebuilding, not private house prices".
Why is it, tim, that every article I have read criticising Osborne's interventions into the housing and mortgage markets fails to make its case by referring to properly sourced metrics on house prices, mortgage lending and construction figures?
If there is an economic case for a massive increase in social housing construction let's see the facts and figures.
Lincoln .. Winchester .. Huntingdon .. Shropshire .. Middlesex and of course Harpenden !!
BBC - Unite rejects Lord Ashcroft's poll findings
well you've sort of answered your own question, If the bubble was being deflated let it deflate. it's pointless pumping up the Achilles heel of the UK economy. Address the problemn - build more houses to let supply match demand. If need be take property assets of banks balance sheets and use them as a base for a housing program.
As for reform try putting guarantees to the productive parts of the economy rather than asset inflation.
Break up RBS and HBOS and form 12 new retail and commecial banks
Improve capital and R&D allowances and reduce energy costs to make onshoring more attractive.
Tie benefits to training and incentivise companies to employ "written off" citizens
Make all education fees free to train a suitable workforce
Get BIS to partner producers and retailers and cut imports
Cancel HS2 and upgrade roads, rail and broadband across the country
Build a decent airport for London.
A few ideas Mr Pole, much better than needlessly subsidising banks.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
Of course you can have too much of a good thing and we have fallen into this trap in the past but this is a modest scheme which can do real good to the economy and to our housing shortage.
None of this means that your other suggestions are not worth trying as well. Bank reform is particularly urgent and one of the reasons this scheme is necessary in the first place.
Sid And Nancy
1. There is nothing wrong with house price inflation, tim. What is wrong is when house price inflation over a number of economic cycles consistently exceeds general inflation and increases in real incomes.
2. The solution to overpriced housing is either catastrophic falls in market prices (see Spain and Ireland for examples) or a managed decline in overpricing and a soft landing for the linked economies.
Often governments don't have this choice. The collapse of the Spanish and Irish markets and linked economies was forced upon the politicians by the markets.
Such catastrophic events have been avoided in the UK (the markets destroyed the banks not the housing sector). This means that the UK has the opportunity to manage house prices and housing construction over a medium to long period.
Osborne intervened in the housing and mortgage markets because they had become illiquid and the risks of non-intervention (catastrophic house price collapse, failed banks) were higher than those of intervention (an eventual overheating of house price inflation).
You are over-focussing on housing benefit and rent levels, concentrating only on the revenue and expense figures and ignoring asset and loan values. The cost to the government and taxpayer of of subsidising housing should take into account all financial aspects of housing provision.
If rents on social housing do not cover the costs of property construction and management, together with a reasonable profit for a private sector operator, then there a state subsidy exists.
I am not against increasing the construction of social housing to meet housing demand but I would like to see it properly costed, How much would central/local governments need to borrow to fund construction? What would be the rental yield from social tenants? If the rental yield doesn't provide an adequate return on capital employed what is the size of the subsidy from the taxpayer?
Take a look at the recent pamphlet published by the National Housing Federation to see how poorly justified the campaign is for a massive increase in social housing build.
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pub.housing.org.uk/HousingBritainsFuture.pdf
Six pages of guff designed to get potential tenants to lobby their local councils but not a figure in cost justification included.
Probably jointly written by the two eminent Nobel laureates in Economics, Lord Oakeshott and jack Dromey!
Brilliant poster and tipster.
Kept Pork in acorns for years on his 'Lansley for Leader' tip.