I wonder how Cable's 38% share of the vote would split were he to decide not to contest the leadership? Danny Alexander at 25/1 with BetVictor is looking like pretty decent value for those who are looking for someone with serious credibility and senior Government potential.
I wonder how Cable's 38% share of the vote would split were he to decide not to contest the leadership? Danny Alexander at 25/1 with BetVictor is looking like pretty decent value for those who are looking for someone with serious credibility and senior Government potential.
The thing is, the way the Lib Dems are performing in Scotland, he's unlikely to win his seat.
That said, he could become Leader before the election, if David Herdson is right.
I wonder how Cable's 38% share of the vote would split were he to decide not to contest the leadership? Danny Alexander at 25/1 with BetVictor is looking like pretty decent value for those who are looking for someone with serious credibility and senior Government potential.
The thing is, the way the Lib Dems are performing in Scotland, he's unlikely to win his seat.
That said, he could become Leader before the election, if David Herdson is right.
I suppose he could become a caretaker leader of the Lib Dems.
After all, someone will have to sweep up the pieces after the election.
What's happened to Norman Lamb in the betting? And can anyone imagine Farron as Deputy PM? I know Prescott was(!) but Farron would be leading one side of a coalition.
I wonder how Cable's 38% share of the vote would split were he to decide not to contest the leadership? Danny Alexander at 25/1 with BetVictor is looking like pretty decent value for those who are looking for someone with serious credibility and senior Government potential.
The thing is, the way the Lib Dems are performing in Scotland, he's unlikely to win his seat.
That said, he could become Leader before the election, if David Herdson is right.
TSE - I totally disagree, based on his 41% share of the vote last time and his then 18% lead over Labour, coupled with his high profile and successful track record at the Treasury, I rate him as being a near shoo-in and excellent value to retain his Inverness seat at Ladbroke's generous offer of 4/5.
What's happened to Norman Lamb in the betting? And can anyone imagine Farron as Deputy PM? I know Prescott was(!) but Farron would be leading one side of a coalition.
I wonder how Cable's 38% share of the vote would split were he to decide not to contest the leadership? Danny Alexander at 25/1 with BetVictor is looking like pretty decent value for those who are looking for someone with serious credibility and senior Government potential.
The thing is, the way the Lib Dems are performing in Scotland, he's unlikely to win his seat.
That said, he could become Leader before the election, if David Herdson is right.
TSE - I totally disagree, based on his 41% share of the vote last time and his then 18% lead over Labour, coupled with his high profile and successful track record at the Treasury, I rate him as being a near shoo-in and excellent value to retain his Inverness seat at Ladbroke's generous offer of 4/5.
Understand that, and I can see him hanging on if there's a 1992 type of result where the winner gets 26% of the vote
Another Chipping Norton set resident who hasn't worked out FPTP. Someone tell him that splitting the Tory/Jerk vote isn't the point.
Looks like a vanity project to me. He's from the area originally I believe. However standing against Miliband as an independent? Why not try and get the Tory nomination? And unless he's a Tory why make such a point by standing against Miliband?
Avery - what do you put the increasing house prices down to.
I am not convinced that we are seeing sustained price rises across the country.
If you look at a five year trend in mortgage lending and volume of property sales transactions to mid 2012 you would have expected the start of a price crash this year, similar to say the -10% correction experienced in Holland. In mid 2012, growth was flat and very few would have been predicting the strength of the current recovery.
With Lloyds and RBoS between them holding 33% share of all UK mortgage lending (around £350 trillion outstanding, with £50 billion new lending per year), a 10% fall in house prices would have caused a second banking crisis, with the government having to inject a second massive tranche of cash into bank balance sheets.
This was the background to Osborne's Help to Buy Schemes. Their original purpose was to avert a crisis.
As it has turned out, the launch and announcement of the schemes has co-incided with a fairly broadly based economic recovery and an uplift in business and consumer confidence.
Popular expectations/fears of another housing bubble are therefore not surprising. It isn't helped, for example, by the Daily Express announcing price increases every week on one of their front pages. And there is a whole housing industry whose revival is dependent on talking up house price increases. Hence all the noise.
But we need to recognise that house prices are dependent on the availability of mortgage finance, And mortgage finance is very constrained in suply.
Loans over 75% of value are no longer being offered in the market to the same extent as pre-crisis. In 2007, over 50% had a LTV of > 75%. Today 67% of loans are below a 75% LTV. Self certification (or non-declaration) of income has reduced from 40% to 10%. Securitised loans have dropped from 20% of total to less than 10% in the same period (affecting lenders ability to sell existing mortgage books to raise additional funds for lending - Northern Rock's achilles heel). Loans in 2007 were roughly 60% to owner occupiers and 40% other. Today the ratio is 80%:20%. And volume of lending is at 40% of pre-crisis levels.
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
Shouldn't they have asked these LibDem Councillors how many of them they expect will still be councillors by the time of GE2015 or does England not have council elections next year as well as the Euros?
Such supply constraints virtually killed the housing market and, unrelieved, would have caused a housing price crash. Part of the reason for the squeeze is that regulators now require lenders to increase their capital adequacy for loans with >75% LTV. With the main banks under-capitalised, markets wary of investing in banks, and the intervened banks being prepared for sale, it is simply not feasible to expect banks to increase lending risk at the expense of having to increase their captital.
Hence the Funds for Lending and Help to Buy schemes which pass BoE funds through the banks without triggering additional capital requirements. The schemes also ensure availability of mortgage products in the market and keep interest rates low (in a period of constrained supply you would have expected them to rise). They are a temporary solution which will apply until the intervened banks are returned to the private sector, general bank capitalisation meets regulatory and market requirements, and, the economy is further down the path of recovery. In a 'normal' market such schemes would not be necessary, hence the reason they have been structured as self-liquidating (the guarantees and equity loans terminate by contract in, say, 5 years).
OK, back to your original question on house prices. Given the above supply constraints, there is little prospect of house prices growing at unacceptably high rates. There simply isn't the availability of finance to support it. What we are seeing at the moment is big increases in 'asking prices' (a soft confidence measure) with much smaller increases in transaction prices (the 'hard' data).Lenders are using their valuers to knock back over-optimistic valuations, so even agreed prices are being reduced to mortgage limits.
In most of the country, the increases this year (and not all regions will experience increases) will be below the level of general inflation. And this on top of six years when prices have fallen in real and nominal terms. Prices are recovering at a higher rate however but the process will be slow. If house prices match CPI on average across the UK for the next two years, this will be on the upside of current forecasts.
Prime property in central London is, of course, a wholly separate market. Foreign buyers are generally cash buyers and not dependent on UK mortgage finance. High BRICS growth, the Eurozone crisis (e.g. Russian money diverted from Cyprus) has all pushed up London property prices. Still, it should be noted that prime property has fallen over the past couple of months as BRICS growth has eased and the flight from the Eurozone abated. Ed Conway spouting on Sky News that Kensington and Chelsea average property prices are now at an "all time record" of 29 times average UK earnings multiples is wholly irrelevant to the general UK property market.
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
What's happened to Norman Lamb in the betting? And can anyone imagine Farron as Deputy PM? I know Prescott was(!) but Farron would be leading one side of a coalition.
Mr. Putney, I'm intending to vote UKIP at the euro-elections, and am about as nailed on a Conservative voter as can be for the General Election (my seat is a straight red and blue fight, and Ed Balls is the incumbent).
Mr. Eagles, isn't that a de jure and de facto quibble? A man who was kicked out by the electorate becoming PM in contentious circumstances would be a recipe for the PR equivalent of Cannae.
Meanwhile, an opinion poll commissioned by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats suggests that Labour remains on course for a comfortable overall majority at the next election – not because the party itself is gaining ground, but because Ukip has tripled its share of the vote, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.
Tesco do it for £24 a pop. It is possibly better than the legendary Tim Adams Aberfeldy Shiraz. A Christmas dinner tipple, to be sure.
No good will ever come of Pinotage, unless you like the flavour of burnt rubber
Not for the first time do we find ourselves on the opposite sides of the fence.....had some lovely Pinotage in Stellenbosch.....been a fan ever since...(in fairness the Sommelier on Queen Victoria was your side of the fence.....).....
Meanwhile, isn't Ashcroft's marginals mega poll out at midnight?
We'll I've just doomed Danny Alexander's political career. Just backed him as next Lib Dem leader at 20/1 - With ladbrokes Danny Aleaxander fans, you can be blame Peter from Putney for this.
Appreciate the heads-up TSE. That's saved me a doomed bet
THe only Lib Dem MPs Danny would beat in a run off, Mike Hancock, the ones who are retiring,That bloke from Birmingham whose mistresses nick each others cats. Anyone else?
A rehabilitated (and installed into the House of Lords) Chris Huhne?
Mr. Putney, I'm intending to vote UKIP at the euro-elections, and am about as nailed on a Conservative voter as can be for the General Election (my seat is a straight red and blue fight, and Ed Balls is the incumbent).
Mr. Eagles, isn't that a de jure and de facto quibble? A man who was kicked out by the electorate becoming PM in contentious circumstances would be a recipe for the PR equivalent of Cannae.
Possibly, fortunately we don't have a written constitution, only letters to the Times, so anything is possible
Would you be so kind as to add the data for the period from 2000 onwards please Avery.
Can't do that, ar.
The MLAR stats only go back as far as the beginning of 2007. Stats up until this year can be accessed from the archived FSA site. This years stats (a continuation of the FSA reports) come from the BoE site.
The FSA started regulating mortgages in 2004, but only released data from 2007.
Both the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the British Bankers Association have their own stats which do go back beyond 2000, but they are not as comprehensive as the BoE stats. BBA stats account for around 67% of total.
I do have stats, which I posted a few days ago, for the Brownian bubble of 1999-2005, but these are BBA figures. Let me know if you didn't see them and I will repost. But if you did, I think it would be most unfair to tim to repost.
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
You don't have to be an MP to be Prime Minister.
Yes, but would he have the authority to go? Would it be seen as a credible move in this modern age?
Imagine if Dawn Barnes or Joe Goldberg had beaten Cameron in 2010. Could Cameron have been an honest negotiator in the formation of a government, knowing that he was no longer an MP?
(A more extreme example would be the newly-elected PM dropping dead between the election and going to see the Queen).
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
You don't have to be an MP to be Prime Minister.
Yes, but would he have the authority to go? Would it be seen as a credible move in this modern age?
Imagine if Dawn Barnes or Joe Goldberg had beaten Cameron in 2010. Could Cameron have been an honest negotiator in the formation of a government, knowing that he was no longer an MP?
(A more extreme example would be the newly-elected PM dropping dead between the election and going to see the Queen).
To be Prime Minister, you need a majority in the House.
The average Tory and Lab leadership election takes 3 months, so you're leader regardless.
The Lib Dems know their future lies in power-sharing
One of Nick Clegg’s greatest strengths is his ability to think strategically. Thanks to him, no one can now claim that coalition governments are a recipe for disaster
Shouldn't they have asked these LibDem Councillors how many of them they expect will still be councillors by the time of GE2015 or does England not have council elections next year as well as the Euros?
The majority of LD councillors were elected in 2011/2012/2013 so will not face re election in 2014
The Lib Dems know their future lies in power-sharing
One of Nick Clegg’s greatest strengths is his ability to think strategically. Thanks to him, no one can now claim that coalition governments are a recipe for disaster
I don't know if it has already been posted, but a bit of bad news for the PB Hodges....taken from the Guardian "“Meanwhile, an opinion poll commissioned by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats suggests that Labour remains on course for a comfortable overall majority at the next election – not because the party itself is gaining ground, but because Ukip has tripled its share of the vote, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.”
But, writing in today's Observer, the former Labour cabinet minister Lord Adonis ridicules any idea that the Lib Dems have wielded real power in the coalition and says their biggest achievement this year has been a 5p tax on plastic bags.
I don't know if it has already been posted, but a bit of bad news for the PB Hodges....taken from the Guardian "“Meanwhile, an opinion poll commissioned by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats suggests that Labour remains on course for a comfortable overall majority at the next election – not because the party itself is gaining ground, but because Ukip has tripled its share of the vote, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.”
So the media spinning that the Tories are gliding to a majority is just rubbish
Good lesson for the media-You can spin all you like,but you need a good product first!
Polling of UKIP - although marginals is better - is still much more difficult than established parties. The big problem any up-and-coming party has is to show they are credible and have a chance of winning seats. That's got a Keysian beauty contest feel - and that's why UKIP's rise was so rapid. I sense a bit of a hollowing of the UKIP share in the moment, helped by people who committed themselves to the UKIP idea but wouldn't be convinced if they'd only come to decide now. UKIP will want/need to go further. The Euros could well be a chance to do that, but they need to show domestic appeal.
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
You don't have to be an MP to be Prime Minister.
Technically, but then it used to be you could be a Lord and be PM, but that is now regarded as, in practical terms, impossible thesedays, even if not technically prohibited as far as I know. With a lot of these unlikely scenario hypotheticals I imagine a new rule would be accepted pretty quickly as being unspoken already, for example that even if there is no rule, a PM cannot not be an MP.
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
You don't have to be an MP to be Prime Minister.
Technically, but then it used to be you could be a Lord and be PM, but that is now regarded as, in practical terms, impossible thesedays, even if not technically prohibited as far as I know. With a lot of these unlikely scenario hypotheticals I imagine a new rule would be accepted pretty quickly as being unspoken already, for example that even if there is no rule, a PM cannot not be an MP.
Tell that to Viscount Thurso, who is a peer and an MP.
I don't know if it has already been posted, but a bit of bad news for the PB Hodges....taken from the Guardian "“Meanwhile, an opinion poll commissioned by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats suggests that Labour remains on course for a comfortable overall majority at the next election – not because the party itself is gaining ground, but because Ukip has tripled its share of the vote, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.”
So the media spinning that the Tories are gliding to a majority is just rubbish
Good lesson for the media-You can spin all you like,but you need a good product first!
SMukesh - I think it is more in desperation in the right wing rags than anything else. There will be a time not too far from now that they will realise there will not be a Tory government next time around and they will then turn on Comedy Dave for about to lose a second GE.
It is highly improbable (as Ashcroft shows) that the Tories will gain an overall majority, unless they can find a way to win over the kippers.
But it is equally improbable that the voters will elect Ed Miliband as PM (and Ed Balls as SCOTE). It is unprecedented for a leader with such bad personal polling to step into Number 10.
It is highly improbable (as Ashcroft shows) that the Tories will gain an overall majority, unless they can find a way to win over the kippers.
But it is equally improbable that the voters will elect Ed Miliband as PM (and Ed Balls as SCOTE). It is unprecedented for a leader with such bad personal polling to step into Number 10.
Which is *least* improbable?
In other words, Clegg, Cable or Farron will decide who runs the country in May 2015.
I don't know if it has already been posted, but a bit of bad news for the PB Hodges....taken from the Guardian "“Meanwhile, an opinion poll commissioned by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats suggests that Labour remains on course for a comfortable overall majority at the next election – not because the party itself is gaining ground, but because Ukip has tripled its share of the vote, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.”
Some of the PB Hodges spent months arguing that UKIP would hurt Labour, that's how little they know about British Politics.
Next June could see some jittery Tory MPs, first Cameron blew it against Brown, then he lost the boundary changes, then he wants another go despite the fact that UKIP switchers hate him.
As long as they keep to the Ed is crap line, everything will be ok, long may it last.
Mr. Rag, you don't think citing a comparable poll from the same point (2 years prior to the vote) in the last electoral cycle is relevant?
It's important to learn from the past. If Blair had been aware of the folly of the Athenian expedition to Sicily during the Peloponnesian War one suspects he would not have sanctioned action in Iraq.
But, writing in today's Observer, the former Labour cabinet minister Lord Adonis ridicules any idea that the Lib Dems have wielded real power in the coalition and says their biggest achievement this year has been a 5p tax on plastic bags.
He might be right, but then how would he truly know what real power the LDs have wielded? At the other end of the spectrum you have people like Nadine Dorries who have ask PMQs bemoaning that the LDs have had too much influence. In each case it suits the narrative they wish to present to say the LDs have done nothing/too much. Does his lordship effectively dismantle the supposed achievements or the LDs, or just assert it?
Why do you think that across the political and economic spectrum all commentators have latched onto the recklessness of Help To Buy so quickly?
You can answer that question yourself, tim.
You know as well as I that this is not an economic, but a political debate.
It is about whether protecting house prices to save the banks and provide an social upgrade path to the aspirant middle classes is a higher priority than borrowing to build tower blocks for immigrants.
Both are important. But at the moment there is only a sound worked economic case for the former.
I hope Miliband is hard at work on the latter otherwise he might have his thunder stolen by dear old Vince.
Anecdote to go with the Ashcroft poll: resumed serious canvassing for the first time since my selection with five hours today, another six tomorrow. We didn't detect any incumbent Tory personal vote so far, and generally seemed in line with national polls - Tories still Tory or UKIP, Labour still Labour, a large chunk of LibDems and a few undecideds coming over to Labour. Nothing remarkable but seemed pretty much on track. Compared with the Observer summary of Ashcroft, fewer Tory-UKIP switchers but more LD-Lab switchers than he seems to have found, but that may be just because of the type of seat (lots of left-wing LibDems, not many right-wing Tories, local Lab-LD coalition).
I don't know if it has already been posted, but a bit of bad news for the PB Hodges....taken from the Guardian "“Meanwhile, an opinion poll commissioned by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats suggests that Labour remains on course for a comfortable overall majority at the next election – not because the party itself is gaining ground, but because Ukip has tripled its share of the vote, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.”
Some of the PB Hodges spent months arguing that UKIP would hurt Labour, that's how little they know about British Politics.
Next June could see some jittery Tory MPs, first Cameron blew it against Brown, then he lost the boundary changes, then he wants another go despite the fact that UKIP switchers hate him.
You are misrepresenting the argument.
Their point was the first 15% or so of UKIP support comes mainly from the Tories, but as that their support rises above that level it increasingly comes from Labour as well
***Passes TSE a straw ***....that will make you feel better.
I'm not clutching at any straws.
I saved you publically doing it, that is why I passed you one. Strange how when we have a poll that shows a decreasing Labour lead it is dissected on here and sub-sectioned to death, then given the "gold standard" treatment. One that shows Comedy Dave being, well, comical, is debunked.......Don't forget....Ed is crap!!!
A Conservative majority, especially when the country is faced with the imminent risk of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls actually getting anywhere near the keys of Downing Street.
It is highly improbable (as Ashcroft shows) that the Tories will gain an overall majority, unless they can find a way to win over the kippers.
But it is equally improbable that the voters will elect Ed Miliband as PM (and Ed Balls as SCOTE). It is unprecedented for a leader with such bad personal polling to step into Number 10.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
You don't have to be an MP to be Prime Minister.
Technically, but then it used to be you could be a Lord and be PM, but that is now regarded as, in practical terms, impossible thesedays, even if not technically prohibited as far as I know. With a lot of these unlikely scenario hypotheticals I imagine a new rule would be accepted pretty quickly as being unspoken already, for example that even if there is no rule, a PM cannot not be an MP.
Tell that to Viscount Thurso, who is a peer and an MP.
Edit - Ah I misread your post - Oops
No problemo. I find it highly amusing we can now have heridatary peers who are MPs, a great topic.
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg.
***Passes TSE a straw ***....that will make you feel better.
I'm not clutching at any straws.
I saved you publically doing it, that is why I passed you one. Strange how when we have a poll that shows a decreasing Labour lead it is dissected on here and sub-sectioned to death, then given the "gold standard" treatment. One that shows Comedy Dave being, well, comical, is debunked.......Don't forget....Ed is crap!!!
I know you're not very bright, but when it comes to me, I post all the polls, and analyse them equally.
I'll give you a couple of facts
1) I was the first poster on the site, to post details of the Ashcroft poll tonight
2) How the feck can anyone post extracts of the sub-samples of the Ashcroft poll, it hasn't been published yet
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
I've made a few suggestions to his Lordship on these polls, he said he'd listen.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
Like it or not politicians obsess over polls although we all know a lot can change between now and election day. That's not to say the polls are worthless. No doubt there were plenty in the mid 90s that suggested the Tories would get hammered and then again after 1997. They aren't always lacking in foresight.
A Conservative majority, especially when the country is faced with the imminent risk of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls actually getting anywhere near the keys of Downing Street.
It is highly improbable (as Ashcroft shows) that the Tories will gain an overall majority, unless they can find a way to win over the kippers.
But it is equally improbable that the voters will elect Ed Miliband as PM (and Ed Balls as SCOTE). It is unprecedented for a leader with such bad personal polling to step into Number 10.
Which is *least* improbable?
They're not mutually exclusive - we're probably heading for another "No Overall Majority" outcome. Cracking value with Ladbrokes at 13/8.
@tim - You refer to Cameron having 'lost' the 2010 election, but seem happy enough with the possibility that Ed could become Prime Minister without winning a single vote off the Tories. Or could easily go into the election campaign not having won a single vote off the Tories in five years of trying. He'd become PM, yes, but surely it's difficult to laud him?
Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Anecdote to go with the Ashcroft poll: resumed serious canvassing for the first time since my selection with five hours today, another six tomorrow. We didn't detect any incumbent Tory personal vote so far, and generally seemed in line with national polls - Tories still Tory or UKIP, Labour still Labour, a large chunk of LibDems and a few undecideds coming over to Labour. Nothing remarkable but seemed pretty much on track. Compared with the Observer summary of Ashcroft, fewer Tory-UKIP switchers but more LD-Lab switchers than he seems to have found, but that may be just because of the type of seat (lots of left-wing LibDems, not many right-wing Tories, local Lab-LD coalition).
Already working on the details of your victory speech?
Tory MPs revolt over Army cuts Ministers are facing a revolt by Conservative MPs over plans to cut the size of the regular Army by 20,000 while boosting the numbers of part-time soldiers.
They need the money to announce a marriage tax break.
Has anyone charted the longest break between significant Tory rebellions? It feels like about two weeks at a time, tops, but I'm sure it is actually a lot more, given the gov will usually stop it before it gets to a vote.
I don't quite understand Rentoul's point. Surely the distance from the green dot to the blue zone is comparable to the distance travelled in the two years before the 1983, 1987 and 1992 elections. According to the chart. So I don't see how he can say that "the Conservatives have further to go than ever before to win a majority in 2015".
@tim - You refer to Cameron having 'lost' the 2010 election, but seem happy enough with the possibility that Ed could become Prime Minister without winning a single vote off the Tories. Or could easily go into the election campaign not having won a single vote off the Tories in five years of trying. He'd become PM, yes, but surely it's difficult to laud him?
Who says you have to win votes off the Tories? About 35% didn't vote Lab or Tory last time.
Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
I'll mention that to him next time.
What I suggested was trying to find out, when people have decided how they're going to vote, why they decided to vote that way, how much of an influence the candidate/party/leader has on that decision.
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PM
And for Lab in Lib/Con marginals - Would you still vote tactically to keep the Tories out or would you vote Lab, ensuring the Tories win the seat.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
It's pretty odd anyone would spend so much of their own money, however considerable their reserves, on political polling. Since he does like doing so, no matter how inaccurate one or a series may be, he'll stick at it and try to improve I'd guess. as it's clearly an obsessive interest in the subject matter that keeps him so invested.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
It's pretty odd anyone would spend so much of their own money, however considerable their reserves, on political polling. Since he does like doing so, no matter how inaccurate one or a series may be, he'll stick at it and try to improve I'd guess. as it's clearly an obsessive interest in the subject matter that keeps him so invested.
He decided to stop donating to the Tories and use it to conduct opinion polls instead!
Tesco do it for £24 a pop. It is possibly better than the legendary Tim Adams Aberfeldy Shiraz. A Christmas dinner tipple, to be sure.
I bought a case of the Tim Adams.
I was going to do a mock pretentious ironic wine review of it in imitation of yourself.
But couldn't be arsed.
The Tim Adams is nice - full of flavour and very velevety smooth.
But it isn't worth £20+ to me as I only drink wine with food and thankfully I don't have a hyperequisite palate which requires the most refined food and drink to enjoy life. So wine at £7/8 suffices for me.
IMO the best value alcohol are the bottles of real ale which supermarkets sell.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
It's pretty odd anyone would spend so much of their own money, however considerable their reserves, on political polling. Since he does like doing so, no matter how inaccurate one or a series may be, he'll stick at it and try to improve I'd guess. as it's clearly an obsessive interest in the subject matter that keeps him so invested.
There was a Radio 4 doccy about political donors before the 2010 election. As I recall Mr Hague said they were political anoraks, who want to gossip with the front line politicos. Much like other rich men buy football clubs.
Since the Conservatives seem to have frozen Lord Ashcroft out, he can insert himself into the debate by commissioning polls, and buying ConHome, PoliticsHome, and some-other-political-publication I've forgotten.
The challenge for the Lib Dems is to turn that negative anxiety about who might end up in Downing Street into a positive – confidence that whoever it is can be moderated by coalition. It is what one Clegg aide calls “the leash on the dog question”.
The problem as I see it (beyond me thinking it unlikely Labour will not get a fairly comfortable majority in 2015), is that I don't think this strategy is working at all, and that while people might claim to like the idea of one of the big parties they are uneasy about being moderated by another, on the whole much of the public still regards moderating (resulting in give and take on both sides) as a betrayal, and so the LDs get little to no credit from those who want a check on the main party in a coalition (see earlier points about Lab ridiculing the notion that LDs have positively contributed, held the tories back as it were, or at the least that it does not make up for what they've traded it for) because at the end of the day the mistrusted party is still in the driving seat, those who don't want a check on their favoured party resent it, and those who are not certain one way or another think they're being two faced, especially if they jump from the Tory sheets to Labours in 2015.
I think that these big Lord Ashcroft polls are very useful as a midterm snapshot of individual marginal constituencies. And its great news for UK political polling anoraks that someone with such deep pockets shares their keen passion and is happy to push the envelope further than most pollsters.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
It's pretty odd anyone would spend so much of their own money, however considerable their reserves, on political polling. Since he does like doing so, no matter how inaccurate one or a series may be, he'll stick at it and try to improve I'd guess. as it's clearly an obsessive interest in the subject matter that keeps him so invested.
I don't know if it has already been posted, but a bit of bad news for the PB Hodges....taken from the Guardian "“Meanwhile, an opinion poll commissioned by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats suggests that Labour remains on course for a comfortable overall majority at the next election – not because the party itself is gaining ground, but because Ukip has tripled its share of the vote, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.”
Some of the PB Hodges spent months arguing that UKIP would hurt Labour, that's how little they know about British Politics.
Next June could see some jittery Tory MPs, first Cameron blew it against Brown, then he lost the boundary changes, then he wants another go despite the fact that UKIP switchers hate him.
It was always likely that the first tranche of UKIP support would come from former Conservative voters.
But the second and third tranches would have come from wwc Labour voters.
In that scenario you would be looking at a Con-UKIP coalition.
The strategic genius of Cameron and Osborne is holding UKIP at the first tranche which results in a Lab-LD coalition.
I think that these big Lord Ashcroft polls are very useful as a midterm snapshot of individual marginal constituencies. And its great news for UK political polling anoraks that someone with such deep pockets shares their keen passion and is happy to push the envelope further than most pollsters.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
It's pretty odd anyone would spend so much of their own money, however considerable their reserves, on political polling. Since he does like doing so, no matter how inaccurate one or a series may be, he'll stick at it and try to improve I'd guess. as it's clearly an obsessive interest in the subject matter that keeps him so invested.
And also that being a political anorak does not preclude one from being financially successful of course. We can still function in society, folks!
Anecdote to go with the Ashcroft poll: resumed serious canvassing for the first time since my selection with five hours today, another six tomorrow. We didn't detect any incumbent Tory personal vote so far, and generally seemed in line with national polls - Tories still Tory or UKIP, Labour still Labour, a large chunk of LibDems and a few undecideds coming over to Labour. Nothing remarkable but seemed pretty much on track. Compared with the Observer summary of Ashcroft, fewer Tory-UKIP switchers but more LD-Lab switchers than he seems to have found, but that may be just because of the type of seat (lots of left-wing LibDems, not many right-wing Tories, local Lab-LD coalition).
Nick Palmer reports vaguely pro-Labour canvassing shock. NOT.
BTW Nick, as an act of personal decency (one you did NOT do for me) - before I take your remarks from one website and put them on another: I offer you a chance to finesse, or withdraw.
I am writing a Telegraph blog on Islamic dress. I MIGHT quote you on your belief that the niqab should be allowed in court in the witness box, even if worn by the accused. Do you stand by this?
Because I am noble and nice I firstly offer you the chance to *refine* your attitude.
An anecdote about the way a ban worked in another country:
Mrs J used to teach at one of Turkey's top universities during her Masters. The ḥijāb is essentially banned in Turkey (as is the Niqāb), and anyone wearing it could be banned from the university. Yet some did wear it around the university, a couple of whom were in one of her classes.
She was faced with a choice: whether to report the women and get them thrown off the course, or allow them to continue in class. The former would deprive them of the higher education, whilst the latter had both moral and legal implications.
Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PM
But what would be the longer term consequences.
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.
"I know you're not very bright"...now now TSE, leave the personal insults by right wingers to the swivelled eyes on here. You are better than that....aren't you?
Given that the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards , why do PB Tories actually want the Tories in power anyway?
Comments
I wonder how Cable's 38% share of the vote would split were he to decide not to contest the leadership? Danny Alexander at 25/1 with BetVictor is looking like pretty decent value for those who are looking for someone with serious credibility and senior Government potential.
That said, he could become Leader before the election, if David Herdson is right.
Clarkson threatens to run against Miliband at election
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09-14/clarkson-threatens-to-run-against-miliband-at-election/
After all, someone will have to sweep up the pieces after the election.
4th @ 10/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Party grandee admits he was wrong to press for deal with Labour in 2010 and discusses success of partnership with Tories
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/14/paddy-ashdown-lib-dem-second-tory-coalition?CMP=twt_fd
If you look at a five year trend in mortgage lending and volume of property sales transactions to mid 2012 you would have expected the start of a price crash this year, similar to say the -10% correction experienced in Holland. In mid 2012, growth was flat and very few would have been predicting the strength of the current recovery.
With Lloyds and RBoS between them holding 33% share of all UK mortgage lending (around £350 trillion outstanding, with £50 billion new lending per year), a 10% fall in house prices would have caused a second banking crisis, with the government having to inject a second massive tranche of cash into bank balance sheets.
This was the background to Osborne's Help to Buy Schemes. Their original purpose was to avert a crisis.
As it has turned out, the launch and announcement of the schemes has co-incided with a fairly broadly based economic recovery and an uplift in business and consumer confidence.
Popular expectations/fears of another housing bubble are therefore not surprising. It isn't helped, for example, by the Daily Express announcing price increases every week on one of their front pages. And there is a whole housing industry whose revival is dependent on talking up house price increases. Hence all the noise.
But we need to recognise that house prices are dependent on the availability of mortgage finance, And mortgage finance is very constrained in suply.
Loans over 75% of value are no longer being offered in the market to the same extent as pre-crisis. In 2007, over 50% had a LTV of > 75%. Today 67% of loans are below a 75% LTV. Self certification (or non-declaration) of income has reduced from 40% to 10%. Securitised loans have dropped from 20% of total to less than 10% in the same period (affecting lenders ability to sell existing mortgage books to raise additional funds for lending - Northern Rock's achilles heel). Loans in 2007 were roughly 60% to owner occupiers and 40% other. Today the ratio is 80%:20%. And volume of lending is at 40% of pre-crisis levels.
[to be continued...]
Say the following conditions occurred:
1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government.
2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
[continued ...]
Such supply constraints virtually killed the housing market and, unrelieved, would have caused a housing price crash. Part of the reason for the squeeze is that regulators now require lenders to increase their capital adequacy for loans with >75% LTV. With the main banks under-capitalised, markets wary of investing in banks, and the intervened banks being prepared for sale, it is simply not feasible to expect banks to increase lending risk at the expense of having to increase their captital.
Hence the Funds for Lending and Help to Buy schemes which pass BoE funds through the banks without triggering additional capital requirements. The schemes also ensure availability of mortgage products in the market and keep interest rates low (in a period of constrained supply you would have expected them to rise). They are a temporary solution which will apply until the intervened banks are returned to the private sector, general bank capitalisation meets regulatory and market requirements, and, the economy is further down the path of recovery. In a 'normal' market such schemes would not be necessary, hence the reason they have been structured as self-liquidating (the guarantees and equity loans terminate by contract in, say, 5 years).
[to be continued ...]
[...continued]
OK, back to your original question on house prices. Given the above supply constraints, there is little prospect of house prices growing at unacceptably high rates. There simply isn't the availability of finance to support it. What we are seeing at the moment is big increases in 'asking prices' (a soft confidence measure) with much smaller increases in transaction prices (the 'hard' data).Lenders are using their valuers to knock back over-optimistic valuations, so even agreed prices are being reduced to mortgage limits.
In most of the country, the increases this year (and not all regions will experience increases) will be below the level of general inflation. And this on top of six years when prices have fallen in real and nominal terms. Prices are recovering at a higher rate however but the process will be slow. If house prices match CPI on average across the UK for the next two years, this will be on the upside of current forecasts.
Prime property in central London is, of course, a wholly separate market. Foreign buyers are generally cash buyers and not dependent on UK mortgage finance. High BRICS growth, the Eurozone crisis (e.g. Russian money diverted from Cyprus) has all pushed up London property prices. Still, it should be noted that prime property has fallen over the past couple of months as BRICS growth has eased and the flight from the Eurozone abated. Ed Conway spouting on Sky News that Kensington and Chelsea average property prices are now at an "all time record" of 29 times average UK earnings multiples is wholly irrelevant to the general UK property market.
'Surprised Danny the Baronet's prophylactic managed double figures.'
A moronic comment,even by your standards.
Just backed him as next Lib Dem leader at 20/1 - With ladbrokes
Danny Aleaxander fans, you can be blame Peter from Putney for this.
Obs says latest @lordashcroft marginals poll shows Lab on course for overall majority as UKIP tripled vote mainly at Tory expense
Mr. Putney, I'm intending to vote UKIP at the euro-elections, and am about as nailed on a Conservative voter as can be for the General Election (my seat is a straight red and blue fight, and Ed Balls is the incumbent).
Mr. Eagles, isn't that a de jure and de facto quibble? A man who was kicked out by the electorate becoming PM in contentious circumstances would be a recipe for the PR equivalent of Cannae.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/14/paddy-ashdown-lib-dem-second-tory-coalition
Meanwhile, isn't Ashcroft's marginals mega poll out at midnight?
Likely something in there to upset everyone.....
(checks pulse to see if feverish!)
Would you be so kind as to add the data for the period from 2000 onwards please Avery.
Can't do that, ar.
The MLAR stats only go back as far as the beginning of 2007. Stats up until this year can be accessed from the archived FSA site. This years stats (a continuation of the FSA reports) come from the BoE site.
The FSA started regulating mortgages in 2004, but only released data from 2007.
Both the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the British Bankers Association have their own stats which do go back beyond 2000, but they are not as comprehensive as the BoE stats. BBA stats account for around 67% of total.
I do have stats, which I posted a few days ago, for the Brownian bubble of 1999-2005, but these are BBA figures. Let me know if you didn't see them and I will repost. But if you did, I think it would be most unfair to tim to repost.
Imagine if Dawn Barnes or Joe Goldberg had beaten Cameron in 2010. Could Cameron have been an honest negotiator in the formation of a government, knowing that he was no longer an MP?
(A more extreme example would be the newly-elected PM dropping dead between the election and going to see the Queen).
The average Tory and Lab leadership election takes 3 months, so you're leader regardless.
One of Nick Clegg’s greatest strengths is his ability to think strategically. Thanks to him, no one can now claim that coalition governments are a recipe for disaster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10308787/The-Lib-Dems-know-their-future-lies-in-power-sharing.html
"Why a Tory majority is so unlikely"
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/09/14/polling-chart-of-the-year-2/
Good lesson for the media-You can spin all you like,but you need a good product first!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/sep/21/labourconference.polls
Edit - Ah I misread your post - Oops
An invasion from Mars.
It's important to learn from the past. If Blair had been aware of the folly of the Athenian expedition to Sicily during the Peloponnesian War one suspects he would not have sanctioned action in Iraq.
You know as well as I that this is not an economic, but a political debate.
It is about whether protecting house prices to save the banks and provide an social upgrade path to the aspirant middle classes is a higher priority than borrowing to build tower blocks for immigrants.
Both are important. But at the moment there is only a sound worked economic case for the former.
I hope Miliband is hard at work on the latter otherwise he might have his thunder stolen by dear old Vince.
Their point was the first 15% or so of UKIP support comes mainly from the Tories, but as that their support rises above that level it increasingly comes from Labour as well
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg.
I'll give you a couple of facts
1) I was the first poster on the site, to post details of the Ashcroft poll tonight
2) How the feck can anyone post extracts of the sub-samples of the Ashcroft poll, it hasn't been published yet
3) When the last Ashcroft marginals polls was published, Mike asked me to write the thread on it, it was praised for it's content - http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/03/09/lord-ashcroft-marginals-poll-out/
PS - I hope Mike doesn't ask me to write the thread on this marginals polls, as I'm attending a Walimah tomorrow, and those things get crazy.
What I suggested was trying to find out, when people have decided how they're going to vote, why they decided to vote that way, how much of an influence the candidate/party/leader has on that decision.
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PM
And for Lab in Lib/Con marginals - Would you still vote tactically to keep the Tories out or would you vote Lab, ensuring the Tories win the seat.
Anyway, I'm off for the night.
What an excellent idea!
I was going to do a mock pretentious ironic wine review of it in imitation of yourself.
But couldn't be arsed.
The Tim Adams is nice - full of flavour and very velevety smooth.
But it isn't worth £20+ to me as I only drink wine with food and thankfully I don't have a hyperequisite palate which requires the most refined food and drink to enjoy life. So wine at £7/8 suffices for me.
IMO the best value alcohol are the bottles of real ale which supermarkets sell.
Since the Conservatives seem to have frozen Lord Ashcroft out, he can insert himself into the debate by commissioning polls, and buying ConHome, PoliticsHome, and some-other-political-publication I've forgotten.
The challenge for the Lib Dems is to turn that negative anxiety about who might end up in Downing Street into a positive – confidence that whoever it is can be moderated by coalition. It is what one Clegg aide calls “the leash on the dog question”.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/09/nick-clegg-perilously-short-friends-–-his-enemies-seem-determined-help-him
The problem as I see it (beyond me thinking it unlikely Labour will not get a fairly comfortable majority in 2015), is that I don't think this strategy is working at all, and that while people might claim to like the idea of one of the big parties they are uneasy about being moderated by another, on the whole much of the public still regards moderating (resulting in give and take on both sides) as a betrayal, and so the LDs get little to no credit from those who want a check on the main party in a coalition (see earlier points about Lab ridiculing the notion that LDs have positively contributed, held the tories back as it were, or at the least that it does not make up for what they've traded it for) because at the end of the day the mistrusted party is still in the driving seat, those who don't want a check on their favoured party resent it, and those who are not certain one way or another think they're being two faced, especially if they jump from the Tory sheets to Labours in 2015.
But the second and third tranches would have come from wwc Labour voters.
In that scenario you would be looking at a Con-UKIP coalition.
The strategic genius of Cameron and Osborne is holding UKIP at the first tranche which results in a Lab-LD coalition.
Mrs J used to teach at one of Turkey's top universities during her Masters. The ḥijāb is essentially banned in Turkey (as is the Niqāb), and anyone wearing it could be banned from the university. Yet some did wear it around the university, a couple of whom were in one of her classes.
She was faced with a choice: whether to report the women and get them thrown off the course, or allow them to continue in class. The former would deprive them of the higher education, whilst the latter had both moral and legal implications.
Both options clashed with her feminism.
The ban on the ḥijāb in universities was relaxed from 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11880622
Non-anecdotally, the penultimate paragraph of the following article might be of interest given the recent event in a British court: a Turkish judge postponed a trial when a lawyer appeared in a headscarf.
http://www.todayszaman.com/blogNewsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=311747
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.