"The line from her office is 'we're not doing anything to destabilise Cameron but if we don't win she is a contender'," says a senior Tory who has known the home secretary for many years. "I think she's been sitting there quietly, with [her husband] Philip, and she's thought 'I don't think Cameron's going to win'."
For me the most likely scenario now is a Lib-Lab coalition (as AndyJS says, Miliband with Farron or Cable) which I think would trigger a leadership challenge, and May would be well placed. That would be an interesting change.
Off topic. Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked! If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
"The line from her office is 'we're not doing anything to destabilise Cameron but if we don't win she is a contender'," says a senior Tory who has known the home secretary for many years. "I think she's been sitting there quietly, with [her husband] Philip, and she's thought 'I don't think Cameron's going to win'."
For me the most likely scenario now is a Lib-Lab coalition (as AndyJS says, Miliband with Farron or Cable) which I think would trigger a leadership challenge, and May would be well placed. That would be an interesting change.
Surely the next Conservative leader would have to be from the right of the party? It would follow another Cameroon election failure.
Off topic. Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked! If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
Off topic. Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked! If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
I doubt Ricard Nabavi considers George Osborne to be a near-perfect Chancellor, more a Chancellor who, so far, has pursued a near perfect macro-economic strategy.
This can be measured by outcome. Osborne inherited an economy in which output had declined further during the financial crisis than in its major competitors and where debt was a higher proportion of output and accumulating at a higher rate.
He had two basic decisions to make when entering office. What were his priority goals and at what rate should he seek to achieve them. He chose fiscal consolidation as his primary goal over growth and decided to implement it at a rate of 1% of GDP per year with 80% coming from spending cuts and 20% from tax rises. He also set a secondary goal of rebalancing the economy away from dependence on public sector services and towards private sector enterprise and exports.
Osborne was criticised by opposition and Krugmanite economists alike for not stimulating growth first before consolidating. If we review economic outcomes, Osborne has won: he chose the near-perfect balance of measures.
The UK is the first of the European economies to achieve exit velocity from recession; it is growing at a faster rate than its European and almost all OECD competitors, including the US; employment is at record highs and unemployment falling; austerity measures have been broadly and fairly imposed and have resulted in very little social unrest; and the deficit has fallen in every year of his term and will continue to do so until 2015. You just need to look at competitive measures of an economy's performance, such as exchange rates where Sterling has apporeciated by some 5% in real terms to note that the UK's success ahs not gone unnoticed in the globals/
Of course there are still many problems to solve: low productivtity, full recovery of the financial sector, falls in standards of living among them, but the Osborne has now built a much stronger foundation from which to move on to these second priorities.
Whatever you think of Osborne the man, there is no little rational base for arguing that his decisions on macro-economic strategy have been anything other than "near-perfect".
I understand that the polls were of Scottish voters and currently showing a vote for continued union. All subject to change of course, but your tone suggests to me that the result is far from certain.
For Britain to leave the EU without a referendum, UKIP would have to win an outright majority in Parliament, which hardly seems likely. Anything short of that would require a referendum, and as the SNP are finding out, the voters are no where near as keen as the party activists.
To leave without a referendum is really quite implausible.
The referendum could be lost. There would be extensive scaremongering of the (non-existent) incipient dangers of leaving. This would be lead and abetted by the BBC. Then we would have Cameron, as PM and from a completely different angle, advising the disinterested voter to vote to stay in.
I agree, except I don't think Cameron really comes into that calculation; much though I admire him, I don't think his position would sway anyone much. I've always said that I don't think a referendum is winnable by the Out side. That's why I want repatriation of powers - the absolute worst thing we could so is have a referendum before negotiation, thus cementing the status quo.
Still, at least you (unlike most UKIPpers) are honest about not wanting a referendum.
That was not quite my point. We didn't have a referendum when Heath signed to go in: I can't see that we need one to leave. But if we do, we do.
I'm not against a referendum---I'm simply very nervous about the result of one. For sure, it will be very close.
That was not quite my point. We didn't have a referendum when Heath signed to go in: I can't see that we need one to leave. But if we do, we do.
I'm not against a referendum---I'm simply very nervous about the result of one. For sure, it will be very close.
How do you work out the SNP are finding it difficult. Assume you are basing this on London based polls
For me the most likely scenario now is a Lib-Lab coalition (as AndyJS says, Miliband with Farron or Cable) which I think would trigger a leadership challenge, and May would be well placed. That would be an interesting change.
Surely the next Conservative leader would have to be from the right of the party? It would follow another Cameroon election failure.
She could pitch herself as to the right, though. Until the leadership election, people assumed Ed was like David M, and I even remember comment that his anti-Iraq stance was just positioning to differentiate himself. That was before the Red Ed tag.
Who do you see as a contender from the Right? Fox is surely shot, David Davis is past his sell-by date... Adam Afriye?
Off topic. Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked! If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
Off topic. Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked! If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
I dunno about that, City have a nasty habit of fading off towards the end of the season. Do you get to the King Power often? I haven't been this season, but usually get to catch a couple of games. They sometimes give us free seats at cup games, mind you now we're striking, they'll probably ban us if it causes disruption!
She could pitch herself as to the right, though. Until the leadership election, people assumed Ed was like David M, and I even remember comment that his anti-Iraq stance was just positioning to differentiate himself. That was before the Red Ed tag.
Who do you see as a contender from the Right? Fox is surely shot, David Davis is past his sell-by date... Adam Afriye?
Poor old SeanT can see that both Millpede and Cammo will lead Britain down the plug hole to decline and irrelevance. However he thinks that a slower decline under Cammo is preferable to a faster decline under Millipede. He should really vote for the only party that has a policy to stop our decline; UKIP.
She could pitch herself as to the right, though. Until the leadership election, people assumed Ed was like David M, and I even remember comment that his anti-Iraq stance was just positioning to differentiate himself. That was before the Red Ed tag.
Who do you see as a contender from the Right? Fox is surely shot, David Davis is past his sell-by date... Adam Afriye?
Ms May backed Mr Cameron in 2005, and she's best know for the 'nasty party' quote, so I'll be surprised if she gets anywhere.
I don't know. Mr Afriye has a nice backstory, but I've never seen him on TV. I like the Direct Democracy platform Mr Carswell touts, but I don't see him as party leader. Owen Patterson seems to be a good egg, but he's another wealthy family type, and after Cameron's 'chumocracy', I think they'd be better avoiding the gentry.
I get to about a dozen games a season or so, work patterns and other commitments prevent getting to more, I mostly go with my son, in the East stand. I didn't get there today, but they were playing very well against Wigan, the last match I got to. Wigan looked poor, not promotion material at all, a pity because I have a few quid on them going up.
It is the best most settled Leicester side that I have seen in over a decade, and while no doubt they will not do it the easy way, I think they are playing like a promotion side, with enough grit to come back from a goal down, and to grind out results. They look a much happier team than for years. Fulham in the cup will be an interesting test.
Off topic. Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked! If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
Off topic. Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked! If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
I dunno about that, City have a nasty habit of fading off towards the end of the season. Do you get to the King Power often? I haven't been this season, but usually get to catch a couple of games. They sometimes give us free seats at cup games, mind you now we're striking, they'll probably ban us if it causes disruption!
She could pitch herself as to the right, though. Until the leadership election, people assumed Ed was like David M, and I even remember comment that his anti-Iraq stance was just positioning to differentiate himself. That was before the Red Ed tag.
Who do you see as a contender from the Right? Fox is surely shot, David Davis is past his sell-by date... Adam Afriye?
Ms May backed Mr Cameron in 2005, and she's best know for the 'nasty party' quote, so I'll be surprised if she gets anywhere.
Good evening, Comrades!
I was under the impression that Comrade Theresa didn't actually call the Tory Party "the Nasty Party" but she said something on the lines "they call us the Nasty Party".
She could pitch herself as to the right, though. Until the leadership election, people assumed Ed was like David M, and I even remember comment that his anti-Iraq stance was just positioning to differentiate himself. That was before the Red Ed tag.
Who do you see as a contender from the Right? Fox is surely shot, David Davis is past his sell-by date... Adam Afriye?
Ms May backed Mr Cameron in 2005, and she's best know for the 'nasty party' quote, so I'll be surprised if she gets anywhere.
I don't know. Mr Afriye has a nice backstory, but I've never seen him on TV. I like the Direct Democracy platform Mr Carswell touts, but I don't see him as party leader. Owen Patterson seems to be a good egg, but he's another wealthy family type, and after Cameron's 'chumocracy', I think they'd be better avoiding the gentry.
I was under the impression that Comrade Theresa didn't actually call the Tory Party "the Nasty Party" but she said something on the lines "they call us the Nasty Party".
Political quotes are always mythical, but none the less damaging for that. e.g. Crisis? What crisis? and "Any man travelling by bus over the age of 30 is a failure", attributed these days to Maggie but actually some Astor woman in the 20s. And you are right, she said they were seen as the Nasty Party".
I doubt Ricard Nabavi considers George Osborne to be a near-perfect Chancellor, more a Chancellor who, so far, has pursued a near perfect macro-economic strategy.
This can be measured by outcome. Osborne inherited an economy in which output had declined further during the financial crisis than in its major competitors and where debt was a higher proportion of output and accumulating at a higher rate.
He had two basic decisions to make when entering office. What were his priority goals and at what rate should he seek to achieve them. He chose fiscal consolidation as his primary goal over growth and decided to implement it at a rate of 1% of GDP per year with 80% coming from spending cuts and 20% from tax rises. He also set a secondary goal of rebalancing the economy away from dependence on public sector services and towards private sector enterprise and exports.
Osborne was criticised by opposition and Krugmanite economists alike for not stimulating growth first before consolidating. If we review economic outcomes, Osborne has won: he chose the near-perfect balance of measures.
The UK is the first of the European economies to achieve exit velocity from recession; it is growing at a faster rate than its European and almost all OECD competitors, including the US; employment is at record highs and unemployment falling; austerity measures have been broadly and fairly imposed and have resulted in very little social unrest; and the deficit has fallen in every year of his term and will continue to do so until 2015. You just need to look at competitive measures of an economy's performance, such as exchange rates where Sterling has apporeciated by some 5% in real terms to note that the UK's success ahs not gone unnoticed in the globals/
Of course there are still many problems to solve: low productivtity, full recovery of the financial sector, falls in standards of living among them, but the Osborne has now built a much stronger foundation from which to move on to these second priorities.
Whatever you think of Osborne the man, there is no little rational base for arguing that his decisions on macro-economic strategy have been anything other than "near-perfect".
Non-partisan: Nah, that's the sort of defence DC would like. If you're a Conservtive Prime Minister, who has had plenty of time to prep this, then you should be able to defend the policy in a way that sells it to voters.
Bit more partisan: I for one, don't understand where children come into it. "If your husband or wife leaves you and you’re left bringing up the family, bringing up the children, you won’t get a single extra penny from this policy. That can’t be right." Surely Reeves is playing on "surely the state should help this woman?", which of course it already does.
"If you are a widow [whose] husband died in Afghanistan, you’ll get not a single extra penny for bringing up your children," the Shadow Chief Treasury Secretary told BBC News.
The war widows' pension has gone down in value these days.
Consider an horrific alternative. The Tories bequeath a recovering economy in 2015. Nothing special, but getting there. Deficit down, growth reasonable.
Nonetheless Miliband wins in 2015 thanks to the electoral maths. He turns out to be as socialist as he says, he borrows and spends, cowers before Brussels, moves against the rightwing press, allows yet more immigration. Of course the economy falters but such is the size of the client state he builds, and given his moves to repress dissent - added to the migrant vote - he wins again in 2020.
And our decline accelerates. All this is perfectly feasible. Even though, after another 10 years of Labour, we would be finished as a country, the way the last 13 years NEARLY finished us.
Rightwingers like me, and you, who pour scorn on Cameron need to take a good long look at what they wish for. Kippers need to do the same.
Miliband has perhaps done us a favour by revealing what he really thinks.
Sean, as has been suggested several times before we seem to be replaying the 1970s.
Wanting another Cameron government is like wanting Heath to have won in 1974.
Yes its possible to think up a nightmare Miliband timeline but I don't see any longterm hope under a Cameron government - immigration will remain uncontrolled, social and economic mobility will continue to fall, debt will continue to increase by £100bn per year, the EU and multinational business will continue to be pandered to ete etc.
At least there's a chance that an EdM government will so discredit both Labour and statist-leftism that there might be reform as there was in response to the 1970s.
Have I missed a poll? Our Tory friends seem very down this evening. It's genuinely quite annoying - please cheer up, it's very dull. P.S. Sean - I went to Antibes in the height of summer. The old town was lovely, and not crowded. I was surprised. I accept that much of the Cote can be wearing in August though.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Help to Buy - giving Brits 95% mortgages - is coming forward 3 months to start next week, @David_Cameron tells The Sun. Link soon.
But, it's disturbing that millions of us have to vote for people who despise us and our values, simply because the alternative is even more horrible.
Not sure why you think people despise you.
If people disagree about issues so be it. There is no need for anyone to despise anyone else and I doubt many people actually think like that.
I get the impression many UKIP supporters like to think that others despise them. It's all part of the "everyone's against us" narrative.
It's for UKIP supporters to decide how they wish to vote - it's their vote.
However all I would say is that the hypothetical poll based on a Con / UKIP pact is a very strong indicator that UKIP does not appeal to a broad section of society - because the idea of a pact sends a large number of Con supporters elsewhere.
Whilst many won't admit it I strongly suspect that Gay Marriage remains a big factor for people feeling that they are "despised". These people simply will never accept it and regard it as an aggressive move from those people who proposed it. They don't seem to realise that to everyone else it is nothing of the sort but their mindset is such that they will never appreciate that.
But, it's disturbing that millions of us have to vote for people who despise us and our values, simply because the alternative is even more horrible.
Not sure why you think people despise you.
If people disagree about issues so be it. There is no need for anyone to despise anyone else and I doubt many people actually think like that.
I get the impression many UKIP supporters like to think that others despise them. It's all part of the "everyone's against us" narrative.
It's for UKIP supporters to decide how they wish to vote - it's their vote.
However all I would say is that the hypothetical poll based on a Con / UKIP pact is a very strong indicator that UKIP does not appeal to a broad section of society - because the idea of a pact sends a large number of Con supporters elsewhere.
Whilst many won't admit it I strongly suspect that Gay Marriage remains a big factor for people feeling that they are "despised". These people simply will never accept it and regard it as an aggressive move from those people who proposed it. They don't seem to realise that to everyone else it is nothing of the sort but their mindset is such that they will never appreciate that.
Why do you think so many Conservative members have voted with their feet since 2005? They well know what their leadership thinks of them.
Have spent the day cuddling up to Charlie Travers in the Big Brother house and listening to Albion beating Man United. This is the longest, most vivid dream I have ever had.
But, it's disturbing that millions of us have to vote for people who despise us and our values, simply because the alternative is even more horrible.
Not sure why you think people despise you.
If people disagree about issues so be it. There is no need for anyone to despise anyone else and I doubt many people actually think like that.
I get the impression many UKIP supporters like to think that others despise them. It's all part of the "everyone's against us" narrative.
It's for UKIP supporters to decide how they wish to vote - it's their vote.
However all I would say is that the hypothetical poll based on a Con / UKIP pact is a very strong indicator that UKIP does not appeal to a broad section of society - because the idea of a pact sends a large number of Con supporters elsewhere.
Whilst many won't admit it I strongly suspect that Gay Marriage remains a big factor for people feeling that they are "despised". These people simply will never accept it and regard it as an aggressive move from those people who proposed it. They don't seem to realise that to everyone else it is nothing of the sort but their mindset is such that they will never appreciate that.
OT. Though the Cote d'Azur is still by a distance the best location in the world with the finest food the most attractive people and an ambiance that comes close to delicious a new and not altogether pleasant phenomena has recently become apparent. The place has filled with Russians.
Restaurants have started advertising themselves in Russian. Menus are written in both languages and some of the new visitors have started sleeping on the beach. Perhaps a cold winter will drive them back to Moscow.....
Twitter Iain Duncan Smith MP @IDS_MP 26 Sep I was looking for one picture to sum up the Labour conference nicely. Found it! pic.twitter.com/LdgaFTRp62
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Help to Buy - giving Brits 95% mortgages - is coming forward 3 months to start next week, @David_Cameron tells The Sun. Link soon.
Good decision. If you are closely following the bank mortgage lending and housing sale volume statistics the market is completely flat.
All the brouhaha in the press about price prices means nothing if banks are not lending and houses not being sold.
The mid-summer stats weren't telling us there was a bubble being blown but that the probability of a house price crash was higher than that of sustained increases.
Twitter Iain Duncan Smith MP @IDS_MP 26 Sep I was looking for one picture to sum up the Labour conference nicely. Found it! pic.twitter.com/LdgaFTRp62
His series, The Story of the Jews, which finishes tonight, has been an astonishing achievement, a TV landmark. Idiosyncratic, accessible, but always authoritative – just like the man himself."
But, it's disturbing that millions of us have to vote for people who despise us and our values, simply because the alternative is even more horrible.
Not sure why you think people despise you.
If people disagree about issues so be it. There is no need for anyone to despise anyone else and I doubt many people actually think like that.
I get the impression many UKIP supporters like to think that others despise them. It's all part of the "everyone's against us" narrative.
It's for UKIP supporters to decide how they wish to vote - it's their vote.
However all I would say is that the hypothetical poll based on a Con / UKIP pact is a very strong indicator that UKIP does not appeal to a broad section of society - because the idea of a pact sends a large number of Con supporters elsewhere.
Whilst many won't admit it I strongly suspect that Gay Marriage remains a big factor for people feeling that they are "despised". These people simply will never accept it and regard it as an aggressive move from those people who proposed it. They don't seem to realise that to everyone else it is nothing of the sort but their mindset is such that they will never appreciate that.
Why do you think so many Conservative members have voted with their feet since 2005? They well know what their leadership thinks of them.
Whatever you think of Osborne the man, there is no little rational base for arguing that his decisions on macro-economic strategy have been anything other than "near-perfect".
That Osborne has desired and deliberately encouraged a restart in household borrowing demolishes your advocacy.
By 2015 the UK will be £600bn further in debt that it was in 2010 and with the drawback that people think instead that debt has been 'paid off'.
So we will be far worse psychologically prepared for actual austerity when we are forced to experience it.
But, it's disturbing that millions of us have to vote for people who despise us and our values, simply because the alternative is even more horrible.
Not sure why you think people despise you.
If people disagree about issues so be it. There is no need for anyone to despise anyone else and I doubt many people actually think like that.
I get the impression many UKIP supporters like to think that others despise them. It's all part of the "everyone's against us" narrative.
It's for UKIP supporters to decide how they wish to vote - it's their vote.
However all I would say is that the hypothetical poll based on a Con / UKIP pact is a very strong indicator that UKIP does not appeal to a broad section of society - because the idea of a pact sends a large number of Con supporters elsewhere.
Whilst many won't admit it I strongly suspect that Gay Marriage remains a big factor for people feeling that they are "despised". These people simply will never accept it and regard it as an aggressive move from those people who proposed it. They don't seem to realise that to everyone else it is nothing of the sort but their mindset is such that they will never appreciate that.
Why do you think so many Conservative members have voted with their feet since 2005? They well know what their leadership thinks of them.
You get the impression that Cameron would like to lead a Conservative party which had no members but instead got its income from the corporate sector and its ideas from fashionable thinktanks.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Help to Buy - giving Brits 95% mortgages - is coming forward 3 months to start next week, @David_Cameron tells The Sun. Link soon.
Good decision. If you are closely following the bank mortgage lending and housing sale volume statistics the market is completely flat.
All the brouhaha in the press about price prices means nothing if banks are not lending and houses not being sold.
The mid-summer stats weren't telling us there was a bubble being blown but that the probability of a house price crash was higher than that of sustained increases.
And what would be wrong with lower house prices?
They might actually lead to more people being able to afford to buy a house with a resulting boost to economic and social mobility.
That Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with falling home ownership is yet another of their failings.
OT. Though the Cote d'Azur is still by a distance the best location in the world with the finest food the most attractive people and an ambiance that comes close to delicious a new and not altogether pleasant phenomena has recently become apparent. The place has filled with Russians.
Restaurants have started advertising themselves in Russian. Menus are written in both languages and some of the new visitors have started sleeping on the beach. Perhaps a cold winter will drive them back to Moscow.....
In 1990 I had invited the editor of a leading pro-Gorbachev Russian magazine to speak at a bankers conference in Cannes. I took him with his wife and a few Russian bankers out to a restaurant overlooking Monte Carlo and had a usual travelling Russian dinner of the finest French haute cuisine with classified claret, champagne, Pepsi Cola and single malt whiskey; all served and consumed simultaneously with cigarettes.
After dinner we went down into Monte Carlo to spend some time at the Casino. We were refused entry on the grounds that the Prince did not permit Russians into the Casino. This applied even though my guest was travelling on a diplomatic passport.
How times have changed! I would not be surprised if almost the whole of the Côte d'Azur is now owned by Russians.
'The Prime Minister launches what he calls a “mission” to win over hard-pressed families, with immediate help to get on the housing ladder and tax cuts before the election.'
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Help to Buy - giving Brits 95% mortgages - is coming forward 3 months to start next week, @David_Cameron tells The Sun. Link soon.
Good decision. If you are closely following the bank mortgage lending and housing sale volume statistics the market is completely flat.
All the brouhaha in the press about price prices means nothing if banks are not lending and houses not being sold.
The mid-summer stats weren't telling us there was a bubble being blown but that the probability of a house price crash was higher than that of sustained increases.
And what would be wrong with lower house prices?
They might actually lead to more people being able to afford to buy a house with a resulting boost to economic and social mobility.
That Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with falling home ownership is yet another of their failings.
Falling house prices would destroy consumer confidence with the result that demand in the economy would fall, unemployment would rise and growth stagnate if not recede.
Banks would be forced to write down the assets covering their existing mortgage loans requiring them to raise additional capital to cover the increased risk. For the 33% of the mortgage market served by the intervened banks (Lloyds, RBoS) this would require taxpayers to inject more funds into the banks and would delay any sale of their shares to the private sector.
None of these outcomes would be preferable to house prices recovering some of the value lost since the financial crisis and growing in value in nominal terms below the rates of general inflation. It is perfectly possible to reduce the house price to income ratio at the same time as maintaining a stable, growing and functional housing market.
It is all about balance, ar. You seem to want to go around amputating limbs rather than curing over a longer term through medication.
I'm sick of "housing ladder". It's not a ladder that we must constantly strive to climb. It's a market for a social need. If I buy bacon from Tescos, I'm not getting on the food ladder. I'm meeting a need.
The way to make housing affordable is to make it cheaper. The end. Stuff the ladder.
'The Prime Minister launches what he calls a “mission” to win over hard-pressed families, with immediate help to get on the housing ladder and tax cuts before the election.'
The underlying problem we have in this country and generally in the western world is because of globalisation we have:
1) Increasing wealth and power concentration among the top 10% and especially the top 1%
2) Declining economic and social mobility
So most people are going to see their living standards stagnate at best while the 'rich' are seen to gain at their expense while hope that things will improve dwindles.
Governments will then resort to gimmicks - Cameron re mortgages and EdM re energy prices - to win support even though this causes further underlying damage to the economy.
'The Prime Minister launches what he calls a “mission” to win over hard-pressed families, with immediate help to get on the housing ladder and tax cuts before the election.'
The underlying problem we have in this country and generally in the western world is because of globalisation we have:
1) Increasing wealth and power concentration among the top 10% and especially the top 1%
2) Declining economic and social mobility
So most people are going to see their living standards stagnate at best while the 'rich' are seen to gain at their expense while hope that things will improve dwindles.
Governments will then resort to gimmicks - Cameron re mortgages and EdM re energy prices - to win support even though this causes further underlying damage to the economy.
@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Help to Buy - giving Brits 95% mortgages - is coming forward 3 months to start next week, @David_Cameron tells The Sun. Link soon.
Good decision. If you are closely following the bank mortgage lending and housing sale volume statistics the market is completely flat.
All the brouhaha in the press about price prices means nothing if banks are not lending and houses not being sold.
The mid-summer stats weren't telling us there was a bubble being blown but that the probability of a house price crash was higher than that of sustained increases.
And what would be wrong with lower house prices?
They might actually lead to more people being able to afford to buy a house with a resulting boost to economic and social mobility.
That Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with falling home ownership is yet another of their failings.
Falling house prices would destroy consumer confidence with the result that demand in the economy would fall, unemployment would rise and growth stagnate if not recede.
Banks would be forced to write down the assets covering their existing mortgage loans requiring them to raise additional capital to cover the increased risk. For the 33% of the mortgage market served by the intervened banks (Lloyds, RBoS) this would require taxpayers to inject more funds into the banks and would delay any sale of their shares to the private sector.
None of these outcomes would be preferable to house prices recovering some of the value lost since the financial crisis and growing in value in nominal terms below the rates of general inflation. It is perfectly possible to reduce the house price to income ratio at the same time as maintaining a stable, growing and functional housing market.
It is all about balance, ar. You seem to want to go around amputating limbs rather than curing over a longer term through medication.
I want to cut out the malignant tumor of living beyond our means. That will be painful but the longer we leave it the harder it will be and the longer governments lie about it the more unwilling people will be to act.
You on the other hand seem happy for debt to rise by £100bn per year until it kills the economy.
The underlying problem we have in this country and generally in the western world is because of globalisation we have:
1) Increasing wealth and power concentration among the top 10% and especially the top 1%
2) Declining economic and social mobility
So most people are going to see their living standards stagnate at best while the 'rich' are seen to gain at their expense while hope that things will improve dwindles.
Governments will then resort to gimmicks - Cameron re mortgages and EdM re energy prices - to win support even though this causes further underlying damage to the economy.
The government wants to build new houses to alleviate the housing shortage but at the same time hopes that house prices for homeowners will continue to rise. They don't seem to have realised these two ambitions are incompatible with each other.
I think that there are a number of housing markets in the UK, in varying conditions of health. The London one is clearly increasing while in the rest of the nation it is merely stirring from a deep sleep.
I can see that it is politically impossible to have a deal that specifically excludes London, but it would be possible to restrict the scheme to £200 000 or so. Outside the SE this would cover quite a good range of property, and in the SE the market is sufficiently bouyant that commercial lenders may be quite willling to go to 95% LTV.
There is a need to prevent negative equity, as this has the effects that you describe, and additionally prevents Labour mobility. It is important that the House prices are stable, and growing under inflation for a period. With the economy improving we will start to see average wages increasing soon, either by increase in payrates or increases in hours. This should as you point out slowly and controledly reduce the payto house price gap, particularly if low interest rates maintain affordibility.
George and Danny may be a peculiar fellows, but by luck or judgement they have run the right balance.
Falling house prices would destroy consumer confidence with the result that demand in the economy would fall, unemployment would rise and growth stagnate if not recede.
Banks would be forced to write down the assets covering their existing mortgage loans requiring them to raise additional capital to cover the increased risk. For the 33% of the mortgage market served by the intervened banks (Lloyds, RBoS) this would require taxpayers to inject more funds into the banks and would delay any sale of their shares to the private sector.
None of these outcomes would be preferable to house prices recovering some of the value lost since the financial crisis and growing in value in nominal terms below the rates of general inflation. It is perfectly possible to reduce the house price to income ratio at the same time as maintaining a stable, growing and functional housing market.
It is all about balance, ar. You seem to want to go around amputating limbs rather than curing over a longer term through medication.
I had a feeling there was a Mr Big behind this........
Though the behaviour of the Prince sounds pretty inexcusable perhaps he knew something about the French psyche that most of us hadn't realized.
I've always found the most attractive feature of the French is that they do things their way without even polite compromise.
Maybe he realized that faced with Russian lucre they are just as capable of rolling over as everyone else and perhaps he knew before anyone else this would end in the cruel fiasco of borscht being served in the Cafe de Paris.
The government wants to build new houses to alleviate the housing shortage but at the same time hopes that house prices for homeowners will continue to rise. They don't seem to have realised these two ambitions are incompatible with each other.
Why are these ambitions incompatible with each other? Increased prices increase supply, do they not? Do you think housebuilders will build more houses if the price drops?
insights into Mr Cameron and his Cabinet contained in the book, In It Together, by Matthew d’Ancona, the Telegraph columnist. It also reveals a “ferocious turf war” between George Osborne, the Chancellor, and Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, over benefits reform which became bitterly personal. Mr Osborne dismissed Mr Duncan Smith as “not clever enough” after one clash, while a friend of Mr Duncan Smith said he found Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne being in office comparable to “Ant and Dec”, the television presenter duo, running the country.
Whatever you think of Osborne the man, there is no little rational base for arguing that his decisions on macro-economic strategy have been anything other than "near-perfect".
That Osborne has desired and deliberately encouraged a restart in household borrowing demolishes your advocacy.
By 2015 the UK will be £600bn further in debt that it was in 2010 and with the drawback that people think instead that debt has been 'paid off'.
So we will be far worse psychologically prepared for actual austerity when we are forced to experience it.
ar
Your figures simply aren't correct. What you are doing is multiplying last year's projected borrowing figure (excluding financial interventions, transfer of RM pension assets, BoE APF transfers, asset sales etc etc) and multiplied it by 5.
The actual PSND ex figure - i,e. what the government borrowed - last year was £81.3 bn according to OBR's March EFO. The ONS have, since the March EFO, revised down 2011-12 PSND ex by £7.5 bn and 2012-13 by £5.2 bn. The OBR have forecast PSND ex to be £107.7 bn for 2013-14 yet, in the first five months, cumulative borrowing has been only £34.6 bn, indicating it is likely to underrun last years total of £81.3 even without the effect of above trend growth in the second half. So the deficit is being reduced at a reasonable rate.
You now need ot take into account the sale of assets such as the Royal Mail privatisation (£3.3 bn) but more significantly Lloyds Banking Group (£3.3 bn with £20 bn plus to come), plus the net effect on debt of the Lloyd's Group returning to the private sector (circa -£400 bn off PSND).
All this means is that Public Sector Net Debt is likely to be reduced over the 2010-15 term even after adding the cumulative deficits over the five years. And with the cyclically adjusted current budget due to be in suplus by 2017 and the sale of RBS to come,.prospects for continuing the downward trend in the next parliament are promising.
LOL.The book also discloses the difficult personal relations between Mr Osborne and Mr Duncan Smith. “'You see Iain giving presentations,’ he [Osborne] confided in allies, 'and realise he’s just not clever enough’.” Mr Duncan Smith was scathing about the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who had been aides when he was Conservative leader. “In the words of one familiar with IDS’s sensitivities: 'Imagine waking up one morning to find out Ant and Dec are running the country’.”
Was the YouGov fieldwork done before or after the tax break news? Still think it had the basis of a decent policy (although should have gone to all households) but should have applied to those on the HR. Families with one BR and one HR have already been smashed by the CB fiasco, so why double the jeopardy? Ozzy doesn't understand tax.
They were originally called PJ and Duncan, actors in Byker Grove, and then pop stars, and then successful TV presenters under their Ant and Dec monikers.
Someone said this morning-I think it was our other best selling author who's name escapes me-that people just want their taxes lowered. He described it as 'the selfish gene'.
I don't think he's right. I believe people's main concern is for fair taxation-their's and everyone elses.
This is why Labour's attack on the energy companies gained traction and why -Michel Gove apart-no Tory or Lib Dem realized that going out to bat for the likes of Centrica-whose MD earns £5,000,000 a year-was not a smart idea.
Was the YouGov fieldwork done before or after the tax break news? Still think it had the basis of a decent policy (although should have gone to all households) but should have applied to those on the HR. Families with one BR and one HR have already been smashed by the CB fiasco, so why double the jeopardy? Ozzy doesn't understand tax.
Fieldwork would have been from late afternoon Thursday until Friday evening.
Your figures simply aren't correct. What you are doing is multiplying last year's projected borrowing figure (excluding financial interventions, transfer of RM pension assets, BoE APF transfers, asset sales etc etc) and multiplied it by 5.
The actual PSND ex figure - i,e. what the government borrowed - last year was £81.3 bn according to OBR's March EFO. The ONS have, since the March EFO, revised down 2011-12 PSND ex by £7.5 bn and 2012-13 by £5.2 bn. The OBR have forecast PSND ex to be £107.7 bn for 2013-14 yet, in the first five months, cumulative borrowing has been only £34.6 bn, indicating it is likely to underrun last years total of £81.3 even without the effect of above trend growth in the second half. So the deficit is being reduced at a reasonable rate.
You now need ot take into account the sale of assets such as the Royal Mail privatisation (£3.3 bn) but more significantly Lloyds Banking Group (£3.3 bn with £20 bn plus to come), plus the net effect on debt of the Lloyd's Group returning to the private sector (circa -£400 bn off PSND).
All this means is that Public Sector Net Debt is likely to be reduced over the 2010-15 term even after adding the cumulative deficits over the five years. And with the cyclically adjusted current budget due to be in suplus by 2017 and the sale of RBS to come,.prospects for continuing the downward trend in the next parliament are promising.
Avery
That is precisely the sort of crap I was referring to.
The government has been borrowing over £100bn per year and will continue to do so until household borrowing restarts.
I could link to the ONS publication on government finances but I can't be arsed.
Its your sort of bollox which has convinced too many people that debt is being paid off.
As nobody else on this site peddles the line might I suggest you give it up and stop wasting your time.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_legislative_election,_2013
FPO, BZO and Stronach are the anti-EU parties.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100025634/a-stark-warning-for-the-eurozone-almost-one-third-of-austrians-could-vote-for-anti-euro-parties/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/27/theresa-may-tories
For me the most likely scenario now is a Lib-Lab coalition (as AndyJS says, Miliband with Farron or Cable) which I think would trigger a leadership challenge, and May would be well placed. That would be an interesting change.
Manchester United fans are showing their true selves. Shallow, impatient glory seekers. The comment sections under the match reports after their defeat at West Brom are a sight to behold, calling for Moyes to sacked!
If their poor form carries on, would Moyes' job be in jeopardy? Might be some betting implications.
Another glorious win for the mighty Foxes today, we may be getting to play Man U next year, if they are still in the premiership.
I doubt Ricard Nabavi considers George Osborne to be a near-perfect Chancellor, more a Chancellor who, so far, has pursued a near perfect macro-economic strategy.
This can be measured by outcome. Osborne inherited an economy in which output had declined further during the financial crisis than in its major competitors and where debt was a higher proportion of output and accumulating at a higher rate.
He had two basic decisions to make when entering office. What were his priority goals and at what rate should he seek to achieve them. He chose fiscal consolidation as his primary goal over growth and decided to implement it at a rate of 1% of GDP per year with 80% coming from spending cuts and 20% from tax rises. He also set a secondary goal of rebalancing the economy away from dependence on public sector services and towards private sector enterprise and exports.
Osborne was criticised by opposition and Krugmanite economists alike for not stimulating growth first before consolidating. If we review economic outcomes, Osborne has won: he chose the near-perfect balance of measures.
The UK is the first of the European economies to achieve exit velocity from recession; it is growing at a faster rate than its European and almost all OECD competitors, including the US; employment is at record highs and unemployment falling; austerity measures have been broadly and fairly imposed and have resulted in very little social unrest; and the deficit has fallen in every year of his term and will continue to do so until 2015. You just need to look at competitive measures of an economy's performance, such as exchange rates where Sterling has apporeciated by some 5% in real terms to note that the UK's success ahs not gone unnoticed in the globals/
Of course there are still many problems to solve: low productivtity, full recovery of the financial sector, falls in standards of living among them, but the Osborne has now built a much stronger foundation from which to move on to these second priorities.
Whatever you think of Osborne the man, there is no little rational base for arguing that his decisions on macro-economic strategy have been anything other than "near-perfect".
How do you work out the SNP are finding it difficult. Assume you are basing this on London based polls
She could pitch herself as to the right, though. Until the leadership election, people assumed Ed was like David M, and I even remember comment that his anti-Iraq stance was just positioning to differentiate himself. That was before the Red Ed tag.
Who do you see as a contender from the Right? Fox is surely shot, David Davis is past his sell-by date... Adam Afriye?
Poor old SeanT can see that both Millpede and Cammo will lead Britain down the plug hole to decline and irrelevance. However he thinks that a slower decline under Cammo is preferable to a faster decline under Millipede. He should really vote for the only party that has a policy to stop our decline; UKIP.
I don't know. Mr Afriye has a nice backstory, but I've never seen him on TV. I like the Direct Democracy platform Mr Carswell touts, but I don't see him as party leader. Owen Patterson seems to be a good egg, but he's another wealthy family type, and after Cameron's 'chumocracy', I think they'd be better avoiding the gentry.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html
No obvious winners.
It is the best most settled Leicester side that I have seen in over a decade, and while no doubt they will not do it the easy way, I think they are playing like a promotion side, with enough grit to come back from a goal down, and to grind out results. They look a much happier team than for years. Fulham in the cup will be an interesting test.
I was under the impression that Comrade Theresa didn't actually call the Tory Party "the Nasty Party" but she said something on the lines "they call us the Nasty Party".
But, it's disturbing that millions of us have to vote for people who despise us and our values, simply because the alternative is even more horrible.
6/1
http://www.veterans-uk.info/pensions/death.html
Bit more partisan: I for one, don't understand where children come into it. "If your husband or wife leaves you and you’re left bringing up the family, bringing up the children, you won’t get a single extra penny from this policy. That can’t be right." Surely Reeves is playing on "surely the state should help this woman?", which of course it already does.
If people disagree about issues so be it. There is no need for anyone to despise anyone else and I doubt many people actually think like that.
I get the impression many UKIP supporters like to think that others despise them. It's all part of the "everyone's against us" narrative.
It's for UKIP supporters to decide how they wish to vote - it's their vote.
However all I would say is that the hypothetical poll based on a Con / UKIP pact is a very strong indicator that UKIP does not appeal to a broad section of society - because the idea of a pact sends a large number of Con supporters elsewhere.
Whilst many won't admit it I strongly suspect that Gay Marriage remains a big factor for people feeling that they are "despised". These people simply will never accept it and regard it as an aggressive move from those people who proposed it. They don't seem to realise that to everyone else it is nothing of the sort but their mindset is such that they will never appreciate that.
If UKIP campaigns to bring the British Parliament in line with EU policy, then they may well get PR
Remember the figures posted after the last Budget - someone earning £10k with 2 kids ends up with as much net as someone earning £25k with no kids.
The figures were so breathtaking that tim thought they had to be wrong - but they're not.
So letting a married couple transfer £1,000 of tax allowance is peanuts in comparison.
And it's not an extra £1,000 allowance - it is letting someone use an allowance (or part of it) which was theirs anyway but simply wasn't being used.
Lab 41
Con 32
Ukip 11
L Dem 8
Lib Dems ....dire!
Have spent the day cuddling up to Charlie Travers in the Big Brother house and listening to Albion beating Man United. This is the longest, most vivid dream I have ever had.
BIG SMILE
Restaurants have started advertising themselves in Russian. Menus are written in both languages and some of the new visitors have started sleeping on the beach. Perhaps a cold winter will drive them back to Moscow.....
I am afraid your reply rather confirms what I posted.
Twitter
Iain Duncan Smith MP @IDS_MP 26 Sep
I was looking for one picture to sum up the Labour conference nicely. Found it! pic.twitter.com/LdgaFTRp62
All the brouhaha in the press about price prices means nothing if banks are not lending and houses not being sold.
The mid-summer stats weren't telling us there was a bubble being blown but that the probability of a house price crash was higher than that of sustained increases.
His series, The Story of the Jews, which finishes tonight, has been an astonishing achievement, a TV landmark. Idiosyncratic, accessible, but always authoritative – just like the man himself."
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2013/sep/28/observer-profile-simon-schama
http://youtu.be/WANZFjJ7TlY?t=21m35s
By 2015 the UK will be £600bn further in debt that it was in 2010 and with the drawback that people think instead that debt has been 'paid off'.
So we will be far worse psychologically prepared for actual austerity when we are forced to experience it.
They might actually lead to more people being able to afford to buy a house with a resulting boost to economic and social mobility.
That Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with falling home ownership is yet another of their failings.
After dinner we went down into Monte Carlo to spend some time at the Casino. We were refused entry on the grounds that the Prince did not permit Russians into the Casino. This applied even though my guest was travelling on a diplomatic passport.
How times have changed! I would not be surprised if almost the whole of the Côte d'Azur is now owned by Russians.
Enjoy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10342014/David-Cameron-My-mortgage-plan-for-struggling-families.html
Banks would be forced to write down the assets covering their existing mortgage loans requiring them to raise additional capital to cover the increased risk. For the 33% of the mortgage market served by the intervened banks (Lloyds, RBoS) this would require taxpayers to inject more funds into the banks and would delay any sale of their shares to the private sector.
None of these outcomes would be preferable to house prices recovering some of the value lost since the financial crisis and growing in value in nominal terms below the rates of general inflation. It is perfectly possible to reduce the house price to income ratio at the same time as maintaining a stable, growing and functional housing market.
It is all about balance, ar. You seem to want to go around amputating limbs rather than curing over a longer term through medication.
If I buy bacon from Tescos, I'm not getting on the food ladder. I'm meeting a need.
The way to make housing affordable is to make it cheaper. The end. Stuff the ladder.
1) Increasing wealth and power concentration among the top 10% and especially the top 1%
2) Declining economic and social mobility
So most people are going to see their living standards stagnate at best while the 'rich' are seen to gain at their expense while hope that things will improve dwindles.
Governments will then resort to gimmicks - Cameron re mortgages and EdM re energy prices - to win support even though this causes further underlying damage to the economy.
You on the other hand seem happy for debt to rise by £100bn per year until it kills the economy.
I salute your indefatigability!
I think that there are a number of housing markets in the UK, in varying conditions of health. The London one is clearly increasing while in the rest of the nation it is merely stirring from a deep sleep.
I can see that it is politically impossible to have a deal that specifically excludes London, but it would be possible to restrict the scheme to £200 000 or so. Outside the SE this would cover quite a good range of property, and in the SE the market is sufficiently bouyant that commercial lenders may be quite willling to go to 95% LTV.
There is a need to prevent negative equity, as this has the effects that you describe, and additionally prevents Labour mobility. It is important that the House prices are stable, and growing under inflation for a period. With the economy improving we will start to see average wages increasing soon, either by increase in payrates or increases in hours. This should as you point out slowly and controledly reduce the payto house price gap, particularly if low interest rates maintain affordibility.
George and Danny may be a peculiar fellows, but by luck or judgement they have run the right balance.
Falling house prices would destroy consumer confidence with the result that demand in the economy would fall, unemployment would rise and growth stagnate if not recede.
Banks would be forced to write down the assets covering their existing mortgage loans requiring them to raise additional capital to cover the increased risk. For the 33% of the mortgage market served by the intervened banks (Lloyds, RBoS) this would require taxpayers to inject more funds into the banks and would delay any sale of their shares to the private sector.
None of these outcomes would be preferable to house prices recovering some of the value lost since the financial crisis and growing in value in nominal terms below the rates of general inflation. It is perfectly possible to reduce the house price to income ratio at the same time as maintaining a stable, growing and functional housing market.
It is all about balance, ar. You seem to want to go around amputating limbs rather than curing over a longer term through medication.
I had a feeling there was a Mr Big behind this........
Though the behaviour of the Prince sounds pretty inexcusable perhaps he knew something about the French psyche that most of us hadn't realized.
I've always found the most attractive feature of the French is that they do things their way without even polite compromise.
Maybe he realized that faced with Russian lucre they are just as capable of rolling over as everyone else and perhaps he knew before anyone else this would end in the cruel fiasco of borscht being served in the Cafe de Paris.
RT @YouGov: Labour lead at 9 - Latest YouGov/ Sun results 25th September - Con 32%, Lab 41%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%; http://y-g.co/16IZw28
Figures might be wrong anyway.
It also reveals a “ferocious turf war” between George Osborne, the Chancellor, and Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, over benefits reform which became bitterly personal.
Mr Osborne dismissed Mr Duncan Smith as “not clever enough” after one clash, while a friend of Mr Duncan Smith said he found Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne being in office comparable to “Ant and Dec”, the television presenter duo, running the country.
Your figures simply aren't correct. What you are doing is multiplying last year's projected borrowing figure (excluding financial interventions, transfer of RM pension assets, BoE APF transfers, asset sales etc etc) and multiplied it by 5.
The actual PSND ex figure - i,e. what the government borrowed - last year was £81.3 bn according to OBR's March EFO. The ONS have, since the March EFO, revised down 2011-12 PSND ex by £7.5 bn and 2012-13 by £5.2 bn. The OBR have forecast PSND ex to be £107.7 bn for 2013-14 yet, in the first five months, cumulative borrowing has been only £34.6 bn, indicating it is likely to underrun last years total of £81.3 even without the effect of above trend growth in the second half. So the deficit is being reduced at a reasonable rate.
You now need ot take into account the sale of assets such as the Royal Mail privatisation (£3.3 bn) but more significantly Lloyds Banking Group (£3.3 bn with £20 bn plus to come), plus the net effect on debt of the Lloyd's Group returning to the private sector (circa -£400 bn off PSND).
All this means is that Public Sector Net Debt is likely to be reduced over the 2010-15 term even after adding the cumulative deficits over the five years. And with the cyclically adjusted current budget due to be in suplus by 2017 and the sale of RBS to come,.prospects for continuing the downward trend in the next parliament are promising.
Con 31
Lab 42
LD 9
UKIP 13
Mr Duncan Smith was scathing about the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who had been aides when he was Conservative leader.
“In the words of one familiar with IDS’s sensitivities: 'Imagine waking up one morning to find out Ant and Dec are running the country’.”
Coincidence of course, but a useful one for Cameron as the lead falls (or reverts to trend) during the week!
30% think he is doing well poll, up from 22% last week.
His decision to freeze prices for energy is supported by 63% of respondents.
Just saying there are worse comparisons to be made.
"Ukip: the old’s revenge on the young":
http://nickcohen.net/2013/09/28/ukip-the-revenge-of-the-elderly/
Ant admitted to voting Tory
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/23/ant-of-ant-and-dec-admits-voting-tory_n_2747880.html
A link if you wish to know more about them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_&_Dec
Here is their finest contribution to humanity (something which I have been desperate to work into nighthawks)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kK9Bpc7zdQ
I don't think he's right. I believe people's main concern is for fair taxation-their's and everyone elses.
This is why Labour's attack on the energy companies gained traction and why -Michel Gove apart-no Tory or Lib Dem realized that going out to bat for the likes of Centrica-whose MD earns £5,000,000 a year-was not a smart idea.
PJ and Duncan Smith
That is precisely the sort of crap I was referring to.
The government has been borrowing over £100bn per year and will continue to do so until household borrowing restarts.
I could link to the ONS publication on government finances but I can't be arsed.
Its your sort of bollox which has convinced too many people that debt is being paid off.
As nobody else on this site peddles the line might I suggest you give it up and stop wasting your time.
Should energy prices be frozen for 20 months
Yes 63%
No 26%
Dont Know 11%