politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If “help to buy” boosts house prices it could be an electio

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If “help to buy” boosts house prices it could be an election negative for the Tories

A new Ipsos MORI poll for Inside Housing has found nearly three times as many Britons disagree than agree that rising house prices are a good thing for the country.

Read the full story here

DavidL

House construction continues to roar in October: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10424534/UK-construction-activity-expands-at-fastest-pace-in-six-years.html

Another triumph for Osborne. That said, I am a bit concerned about the productivity of the guy on the roof. He has been there for months.

Millsy

tim said:

The deliberate stoking of house prices by George Osborne for electoral purposes is the biggest single reason to remove him and Cameron.
That his wheeze may damage the Tory party as this polling suggests it could well do should come as no surprise to students of his previous wheezes.

Blair and Brown contaminated that strategy eh?

Cityunslicker

How can rising house prices not be a good thing? Along with rising housebuilding, rising incomes etc. Sadly the poll shows how insecure everyone feels about the future these days - long gone are the roaring 80's and go go Noughties. Anyway the best thing about this poll is the exposing of a spiral of silence issue - what I believe is good for me and will vote for, contrasted to what I believe is best for the country and will tell everyone else I will vote for.

Morris_Dancer

House prices are always bad. It's either negative equity and low confidence or people struggling to get the first step on the housing ladder.

Anorak

An appropriate song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLNkN6O4ifY

RichardNabavi

Have pollsters asked the following questions?

Do you agree or disagree with the statement "Falling house prices are bad for Britain"?

Since 2008, the housing market has ground to a halt. Is this good or bad for Britain?

If not, one to file in the bin.

Slackbladder

What would be polling be for 'Falling house prices are a good thing for Britain'?

I expect that would be just as much a bad thing (if not more) if asked...

Peter_the_Punter

Apologies for going o/t so soon but my attention has just been drawn to the following article on the likelihood of Hillary running for the Presidency in 2016:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/55900/senator-jumps-gun-endorse-president-hillary-clinton

Schumer's 'indescretion' was reported a while back in Politico but Laurence's piece in The Week fleshes the story out nicely. Rahm Emmanuel's open support recently was perhaps as significant and it is starting to look like an orchestrated campaign to clear the field for her. 6/4 is still available at Hills but not for much longer, I guess.

Meanwhile, Chris Cristie looks like winning big in New Jersey, If he does, it would be bound to enhance his credentials. You can also argue that his fate will be linked to Hillary's. If she runs, the GOP will need a substantial figure to oppose her. Christie fits the bill in every sense.

8/1 (Hills, again) is also looking substantial.

Peter_the_Punter

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

DavidL

Those of us old enough to remember the early 90s look upon this "debate" with some disbelief. In the early 90s in the low hundreds of thousands of homes were repossessed leaving many, many people with substantial debts from negative equity as well as a massive increase in unemployment. My brother was one of them. Lower house prices are not some panacea. They really aren't.

Apart from the widescale human misery that this caused our banking sector is also not strong enough to cope with such an outcome. Look at what is happening to the banks in Spain and Portugal for yet further economic consequences of falling house prices.

Of course in the longer run we want house prices to fall relative to wages in real terms. That means that they should, if at all possible, retain slightly more than their nominal value but not soar away. So far, barring a few distorted exceptions in London where foreign money is making a difference, this is mission accomplished for Osborne.

Personally I would exclude the prosperous parts of London and the south east from HTB from the start and phase it out as areas reach a certain level of gains. It is clearly a policy for the short term rather than the long. If RBS can be sorted out and makes mortgages more freely available it will no longer be necessary.

NickPalmer

Cityunslicker said:

How can rising house prices not be a good thing? Along with rising housebuilding, rising incomes etc.

That's a view that I think even Cameron would hesitate to endorse. Would you apply it to prices generally? Would you be pleased to learn that, say, the cost of milk had doubled? Or do you take a different view because you don't own a farm but you do own a house? That illustrates what "out of touch" means.

And yes, the rise in house prices under the last government was bad news too. It reflects a shortage of supply.

DavidL

tim said:

@DavidL

Roaring, or climbing from

" The number of homes completed in England in 2012/13 was the lowest since records began, with just 107,820 built. Housing starts for 2012/13 were the third lowest since records began, at 101,640.'

Yes Tim. The consequences of a lack of credit in the housing market and falling prices were terrible for the country and many disappointed home buyers. Thank goodness Osborne has done something about it.

Sean_F

Cityunslicker said:

How can rising house prices not be a good thing? Along with rising housebuilding, rising incomes etc. Sadly the poll shows how insecure everyone feels about the future these days - long gone are the roaring 80's and go go Noughties. Anyway the best thing about this poll is the exposing of a spiral of silence issue - what I believe is good for me and will vote for, contrasted to what I believe is best for the country and will tell everyone else I will vote for.

Ideally, you want house prices to rise in line with the overall rise in output per head.

david_herdson

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

And there's the cognative dissonance. People will say, and believe, that rising housing prices are in themselves a bad thing but when they happen, they're both a consequence and a cause of expanding economic activity and people feel both more secure and wealthier.

In any case, I've not seen any evidence of them round here. Prices are still what they were four years ago and 20% below the peak (before taking inflation into account). We've not had one viewing on the house we put up for sale three months ago. A boom it is not.

RichardNabavi

NickPalmer said:

And yes, the rise in house prices under the last government was bad news too. It reflects a shortage of supply.

I have a suspicion that Labour are setting themselves up for trouble on that point: the government is sending out strong signals that it will increase supply through further changes to the planning system. If so, Labour will have an interesting challenge in how they respond.

My personal view is that there's a lot that can be done on this without wrecking the countryside. At present, we seem to have the worst of both worlds: inflexibility, bureaucratic interference, arbitrariness, long delays and high costs in the planning system, combined with creeping suburbanisation through inappropriate development, especially over large swathes of SE England.

david_herdson

NickPalmer said:

Cityunslicker said:

How can rising house prices not be a good thing? Along with rising housebuilding, rising incomes etc.

That's a view that I think even Cameron would hesitate to endorse. Would you apply it to prices generally? Would you be pleased to learn that, say, the cost of milk had doubled? Or do you take a different view because you don't own a farm but you do own a house? That illustrates what "out of touch" means.

And yes, the rise in house prices under the last government was bad news too. It reflects a shortage of supply.

Houses are fundamentally different from milk though. One's an investment purchase (and one widely used as security to borrow against), the other's a consumable. The ideal for the property market is slowly but steadily rising prices, the ideal for milk is slowly but steadily falling ones (in real terms). Unfortunately, due to the nature of the housing market, slow, steady rises are very much the exception.

OblitusSumMe

david_herdson said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

And there's the cognative dissonance. People will say, and believe, that rising housing prices are in themselves a bad thing but when they happen, they're both a consequence and a cause of expanding economic activity and people feel both more secure and wealthier.

I agree with some of Herdson's point.

I think that rising house prices are a bad thing for the British economy, but I own a house with a mortgage, and I will feel financially more secure if the price of my house rises so that my mortgage reduces as a proportion. One is a rational judgement and the other an emotional response.

The evidence is that most people vote on the basis of emotions rather than rational judgement.

Gerry_Mander

Sean_F said:

Cityunslicker said:

How can rising house prices not be a good thing? Along with rising housebuilding, rising incomes etc. Sadly the poll shows how insecure everyone feels about the future these days - long gone are the roaring 80's and go go Noughties. Anyway the best thing about this poll is the exposing of a spiral of silence issue - what I believe is good for me and will vote for, contrasted to what I believe is best for the country and will tell everyone else I will vote for.

Ideally, you want house prices to rise in line with the overall rise in output per head.

Or maybe a bit faster. Food, in particular, has not risen in price in line with earnings over the long term, the proportion of income spent on food has declined.

CarlottaVance

Who are 'Inside Housing' who commissioned this poll?

Oh yes:

"Inside Housing is the leading weekly magazine for housing professionals in the UK and the first choice for anyone looking for a job in housing. With its lively mix of news, features and analysis, housing professionals rely on Inside Housing to keep them fully updated on everything in the social housing world. "

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6500161

I guess that's why they didn't ask the 'falling house prices' question.....

Meanwhile (net favourable)

'Good thing for me personally'
Owner/Occupier: +11
Renter: -65

And among owner/occupiers:
16-34: -20
35-55: +21
55+: +28

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Ipsos-MORI-SRI-Inside-Housing-house-prices-tables.pdf

CarlottaVance

@tim - at least the NI polls ask a range of questions....don't you think this poll might have been more helpful if the converse question had been asked?

SouthamObserver

Rising house prices are great for me, but an absolute disaster for my kids. A lot of homeowners wear two hats on this.

However, we need to be wary of polling that asks about what is good or bad for Britain. I am not sure that people vote on that basis. Look at responses to immigration and race relations when asked generally and then how it affects you and your family.

RichardNabavi

Here's a suggestion: Make it easier to convert commercial premises to housing. Nice, easy, no-cost, supply-side reform, with no implications for the green belt or cherished countryside, right?

Yes, which is why the government has done this.

Labour's position?

Yep, you guessed right. When it comes to reforms to boost supply, they're against them.

Schards

tim said:

The deliberate stoking of house prices by George Osborne for electoral purposes is the biggest single reason to remove him and Cameron.
That his wheeze may damage the Tory party as this polling suggests it could well do should come as no surprise to students of his previous wheezes.

It is remarkable how many inaccurate assertions you have managed to squeeze into two sentences.

Pulpstar

Peter_the_Punter said:

Apologies for going o/t so soon but my attention has just been drawn to the following article on the likelihood of Hillary running for the Presidency in 2016:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/55900/senator-jumps-gun-endorse-president-hillary-clinton

Schumer's 'indescretion' was reported a while back in Politico but Laurence's piece in The Week fleshes the story out nicely. Rahm Emmanuel's open support recently was perhaps as significant and it is starting to look like an orchestrated campaign to clear the field for her. 6/4 is still available at Hills but not for much longer, I guess.

Meanwhile, Chris Cristie looks like winning big in New Jersey, If he does, it would be bound to enhance his credentials. You can also argue that his fate will be linked to Hillary's. If she runs, the GOP will need a substantial figure to oppose her. Christie fits the bill in every sense.

8/1 (Hills, again) is also looking substantial.

I'm amazed that Chris Christie is at 8-1, especially as Hills have him up at 12-1 !! in the presidential market. That is an implied 4/9 on for the republicans when their own odds compiler makes them 10-11. Bizarre.

Hills let me have a tenner anyway, might try adding another tenner in their shop tonight.

MrJones

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Anorak

RichardNabavi said:

Here's a suggestion: Make it easier to convert commercial premises to housing. Nice, easy, no-cost, supply-side reform, with no implications for the green belt or cherished countryside, right?

Yes, which is why the government has done this.

Labour's position?

Yep, you guessed right. When it comes to reforms to boost supply, they're against them.

Given the ongoing collapse of the high street in favour of online shopping, it's the only sensible thing to do. I live in an affluent area of West London and our high street is dotted with boarded up shops. The only new businesses are estate agents, charity shops, coffee shops or restaurants (and the turnover on the latter two is horrific). Oh, and nail bars, tanning salons and other body-beautiful emporia, which also keel over within 6 months.

What's Labour's objection?

CarlottaVance

Hardman on May's upcoming Hoc appearance (15.30):

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/theresa-may-to-give-statement-on-missing-terror-suspect/?utm_source=feedly

RichardNabavi

Anorak said:

What's Labour's objection?

Labour’s planning spokesperson, Nicky Gavron said the planning system already provides local authorities with the tools to allow conversions where appropriate. She said: “These exemptions should be seen for what they are – a government which trumpets localism whilst once again ignores local concerns. It’s extraordinary that only ten out of 33 London boroughs were exempted from this policy when the economy needs all the help it can get. The vast majority of London is at risk of losing the office space that existing small businesses and start-ups rely on to thrive. How will the Tech Cities of the future pop up when any property outside the boundaries will have too high a value for many businesses and start-ups? The difference in value between employment and residential properties is already high, and this policy will double or treble it in areas which aren’t exempted.”

http://planningblog.planningresource.co.uk/2013/05/10/government-reveals-details-of-new-permitted-development-rights-reaction/

CarlottaVance

MrJones said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Renters and young owner occupiers think its a bad idea, older owner occupiers are in favour.....and shortly I will exclusively reveal ursine defecation habits.....

CarlottaVance

Meanwhile, the BBC falls for the Tory plot:

"Falkirk vote-rigging evidence 'not withdrawn'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24801672

Cityunslicker

"That's a view that I think even Cameron would hesitate to endorse. Would you apply it to prices generally? Would you be pleased to learn that, say, the cost of milk had doubled? Or do you take a different view because you don't own a farm but you do own a house? That illustrates what "out of touch" means.

And yes, the rise in house prices under the last government was bad news too. It reflects a shortage of supply."

Nick my point was solely to say that for people to think things going up in price is bad, they must have a negative view of their own prospects. Back in the days when buying a house was a dream not a millstone, things were different. it really is different, psychologically now. In any event HTB is very small non-event. there is no new bubble in house prices except in super prime London, which affects few UK voters. The real issue is the lack of supply of new homes. Even mortgage financing is not that hard to come by against historical standards, but net new builds are at or near all time lows, yet the population is increasing rapidly and mostly in the South East where it is hardest to gain new permits due to NIMBY/Green belt etc.

Even then its hard to know what the political outcome will be, by easing planning Government annoys the NIMBY's; not easing planning pushes home ownership further away from the masses. HTB seems to be a sort of sop to the latter whilst the planning is reformed - but the local government is robust and will not easily give in to this challenge to one of the few areas councillors can boast about having a say in and showing off to their mates...

MrJones

The left half of the political class want to import millions of new voters. The people who own the right half want to import millions of workers to drive down wages. Hence both halves colluding in unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public and thereby massively increasing the demand for housing. They can't meet that demand openly because that would involve the political class stopping lying about their intentions. Hence the ongoing housing crisis.

Peter_the_Punter

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Apologies for going o/t so soon but my attention has just been drawn to the following article on the likelihood of Hillary running for the Presidency in 2016:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/55900/senator-jumps-gun-endorse-president-hillary-clinton

Schumer's 'indescretion' was reported a while back in Politico but Laurence's piece in The Week fleshes the story out nicely. Rahm Emmanuel's open support recently was perhaps as significant and it is starting to look like an orchestrated campaign to clear the field for her. 6/4 is still available at Hills but not for much longer, I guess.

Meanwhile, Chris Cristie looks like winning big in New Jersey, If he does, it would be bound to enhance his credentials. You can also argue that his fate will be linked to Hillary's. If she runs, the GOP will need a substantial figure to oppose her. Christie fits the bill in every sense.

8/1 (Hills, again) is also looking substantial.

I'm amazed that Chris Christie is at 8-1, especially as Hills have him up at 12-1 !! in the presidential market. That is an implied 4/9 on for the republicans when their own odds compiler makes them 10-11. Bizarre.

Hills let me have a tenner anyway, might try adding another tenner in their shop tonight.

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

surbiton

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Apologies for going o/t so soon but my attention has just been drawn to the following article on the likelihood of Hillary running for the Presidency in 2016:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/55900/senator-jumps-gun-endorse-president-hillary-clinton

Schumer's 'indescretion' was reported a while back in Politico but Laurence's piece in The Week fleshes the story out nicely. Rahm Emmanuel's open support recently was perhaps as significant and it is starting to look like an orchestrated campaign to clear the field for her. 6/4 is still available at Hills but not for much longer, I guess.

Meanwhile, Chris Cristie looks like winning big in New Jersey, If he does, it would be bound to enhance his credentials. You can also argue that his fate will be linked to Hillary's. If she runs, the GOP will need a substantial figure to oppose her. Christie fits the bill in every sense.

8/1 (Hills, again) is also looking substantial.

I'm amazed that Chris Christie is at 8-1, especially as Hills have him up at 12-1 !! in the presidential market. That is an implied 4/9 on for the republicans when their own odds compiler makes them 10-11. Bizarre.

Hills let me have a tenner anyway, might try adding another tenner in their shop tonight.

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

MrJones

CarlottaVance said:

MrJones said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Renters and young owner occupiers think its a bad idea, older owner occupiers are in favour.....and shortly I will exclusively reveal ursine defecation habits.....

That would be my guess.

Gerry_Mander

CarlottaVance said:

MrJones said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Renters and young owner occupiers think its a bad idea, older owner occupiers are in favour.....and shortly I will exclusively reveal ursine defecation habits.....

One would have thought the people most in favour are hose likely to inherit a substantial asset. What help are rising prices to the elderly, other than being able to be used to get their children to be nice to them?

Pulpstar

Peter_the_Punter said:

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

Heh, I'm following Raceclear on that one - Landestown Star at 11-4, now 2-1. May the best nag win

Slackbladder

Gerry_Mander said:

CarlottaVance said:

MrJones said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Renters and young owner occupiers think its a bad idea, older owner occupiers are in favour.....and shortly I will exclusively reveal ursine defecation habits.....

One would have thought the people most in favour are hose likely to inherit a substantial asset. What help are rising prices to the elderly, other than being able to be used to get their children to be nice to them?

Well anyone aging and sensible would think about they should downgrade or move house depending on their changing needs.

Too many stories of elderly ladies hanging on in big houses way beyond the stage they should have considered moving, and then being unable to....

Peter_the_Punter

surbiton said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Apologies for going o/t so soon but my attention has just been drawn to the following article on the likelihood of Hillary running for the Presidency in 2016:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/55900/senator-jumps-gun-endorse-president-hillary-clinton

Schumer's 'indescretion' was reported a while back in Politico but Laurence's piece in The Week fleshes the story out nicely. Rahm Emmanuel's open support recently was perhaps as significant and it is starting to look like an orchestrated campaign to clear the field for her. 6/4 is still available at Hills but not for much longer, I guess.

Meanwhile, Chris Cristie looks like winning big in New Jersey, If he does, it would be bound to enhance his credentials. You can also argue that his fate will be linked to Hillary's. If she runs, the GOP will need a substantial figure to oppose her. Christie fits the bill in every sense.

8/1 (Hills, again) is also looking substantial.

I'm amazed that Chris Christie is at 8-1, especially as Hills have him up at 12-1 !! in the presidential market. That is an implied 4/9 on for the republicans when their own odds compiler makes them 10-11. Bizarre.

Hills let me have a tenner anyway, might try adding another tenner in their shop tonight.

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

I've written a thread piece on this subject, Surbiton. Be sure to join in when Mike releases it !

david_herdson

MrJones said:

The left half of the political class want to import millions of new voters. The people who own the right half want to import millions of workers to drive down wages. Hence both halves colluding in unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public and thereby massively increasing the demand for housing. They can't meet that demand openly because that would involve the political class stopping lying about their intentions. Hence the ongoing housing crisis.

That's nonsense. Go and check the net immigration figures for, say, the last 30 years (to give a flavour of 'both halves' being in power). There is a step change in the late 1990s.

Pulpstar

Peter_the_Punter said:

surbiton said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Apologies for going o/t so soon but my attention has just been drawn to the following article on the likelihood of Hillary running for the Presidency in 2016:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/55900/senator-jumps-gun-endorse-president-hillary-clinton

Schumer's 'indescretion' was reported a while back in Politico but Laurence's piece in The Week fleshes the story out nicely. Rahm Emmanuel's open support recently was perhaps as significant and it is starting to look like an orchestrated campaign to clear the field for her. 6/4 is still available at Hills but not for much longer, I guess.

Meanwhile, Chris Cristie looks like winning big in New Jersey, If he does, it would be bound to enhance his credentials. You can also argue that his fate will be linked to Hillary's. If she runs, the GOP will need a substantial figure to oppose her. Christie fits the bill in every sense.

8/1 (Hills, again) is also looking substantial.

I'm amazed that Chris Christie is at 8-1, especially as Hills have him up at 12-1 !! in the presidential market. That is an implied 4/9 on for the republicans when their own odds compiler makes them 10-11. Bizarre.

Hills let me have a tenner anyway, might try adding another tenner in their shop tonight.

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

I've written a thread piece on this subject, Surbiton. Be sure to join in when Mike releases it !

Hills had next president: Female at the same time as they had - next president: Hilary both at 5-2 ! Sometimes I think they change one market and forget about another until someone bets on it.

Peter_the_Punter

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

Heh, I'm following Raceclear on that one - Landestown Star at 11-4, now 2-1. May the best nag win

Like a lot of punters, Pulpstar, my selection procedure starts by trying to identify a weak, opposable favorite. Landestown fitted the bill for me. Bold Tara was my choice at the odds for those most likely to take advantage.

I appreciate I am making myself a hostage to fortune in telling you this, but I hate punters who are wise after the event and if I've got it wrong, I'll be happy to admit it.

Going to be interesting.

Pulpstar

Gerry_Mander said:

CarlottaVance said:

MrJones said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Renters and young owner occupiers think its a bad idea, older owner occupiers are in favour.....and shortly I will exclusively reveal ursine defecation habits.....

One would have thought the people most in favour are hose likely to inherit a substantial asset. What help are rising prices to the elderly, other than being able to be used to get their children to be nice to them?

Those children could well be pensioners (Or at least over 50) themselves though given today's life expectancies...

CarlottaVance

May murdering Cooper.....

Pulpstar

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

Heh, I'm following Raceclear on that one - Landestown Star at 11-4, now 2-1. May the best nag win

Like a lot of punters, Pulpstar, my selection procedure starts by trying to identify a weak, opposable favorite. Landestown fitted the bill for me. Bold Tara was my choice at the odds for those most likely to take advantage.

I appreciate I am making myself a hostage to fortune in telling you this, but I hate punters who are wise after the event and if I've got it wrong, I'll be happy to admit it.

Going to be interesting.

Osmosia could yet scupper us both )

RichardNabavi

surbiton said:

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

What, not this guy?

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rick-perry-goes-national-praises-rick-scott-and-susana-martinez

Gerry_Mander

Pulpstar said:

>

Those children could well be pensioners (Or at least over 50) themselves though given today's life expectancies...

Agreed, I'm mid 50s and my mother and mother in law are both still going strong.

Pulpstar

I've still got a hope for Rand Paul - on at 33s...

@Peterthepunter One thing abour raceclear is I always know when his tips are up - so I can get on at the correct price 90+% of the time. Seeing as Landestown has come in from 11-4 to 2-1 and your selection from 9-2 -> 7-2, those gaps to the SP form in essence the long run profit. I think

MrJones

david_herdson said:

MrJones said:

The left half of the political class want to import millions of new voters. The people who own the right half want to import millions of workers to drive down wages. Hence both halves colluding in unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public and thereby massively increasing the demand for housing. They can't meet that demand openly because that would involve the political class stopping lying about their intentions. Hence the ongoing housing crisis.

That's nonsense. Go and check the net immigration figures for, say, the last 30 years (to give a flavour of 'both halves' being in power). There is a step change in the late 1990s.

"There is a step change in the late 1990s."

Yes, there was a step change and it is still in effect.

Peter_the_Punter

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

surbiton said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Apologies for going o/t so soon but my attention has just been drawn to the following article on the likelihood of Hillary running for the Presidency in 2016:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/55900/senator-jumps-gun-endorse-president-hillary-clinton



8/1 (Hills, again) is also looking substantial.

I'm amazed that Chris Christie is at 8-1, especially as Hills have him up at 12-1 !! in the presidential market. That is an implied 4/9 on for the republicans when their own odds compiler makes them 10-11. Bizarre.

Hills let me have a tenner anyway, might try adding another tenner in their shop tonight.

It is a fantastic trading bet if nothing else, Pulpstar. The price is bound to crash if he wins big in the NJ Govenor race, as is now widely expected.

On the horses, have had a fairly serious bet on Bold Tara in the 4.05 at Plumpton. I got 9/2 this morning, but 7/2 available now still looks alright. Be warned though. This horse could win by a street, or get tailed off. It's one of them. I've taken the ew, but obviously that's a marginal decision at the price.

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

I've written a thread piece on this subject, Surbiton. Be sure to join in when Mike releases it !

Hills had next president: Female at the same time as they had - next president: Hilary both at 5-2 ! Sometimes I think they change one market and forget about another until someone bets on it.

I'm sure it's true, but please don't tell them. Wouldn't want Sidney to lose his job.

I think the 5/2 a female Pres. is a great bet. Pretty sure a number of other PBers have piled in.

Slackbladder

Pulpstar said:

Gerry_Mander said:

CarlottaVance said:

MrJones said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Renters and young owner occupiers think its a bad idea, older owner occupiers are in favour.....and shortly I will exclusively reveal ursine defecation habits.....

One would have thought the people most in favour are hose likely to inherit a substantial asset. What help are rising prices to the elderly, other than being able to be used to get their children to be nice to them?

Those children could well be pensioners (Or at least over 50) themselves though given today's life expectancies...

Also having capital in houses means more security if the need for nursing costs arises. Especially with pensions not meeting expectations.

MrJones

Pulpstar said:

Gerry_Mander said:

CarlottaVance said:

MrJones said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

On topic, this doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing fuels the feelgood factor quite like a hike in house prices.

Is it across the board? If it's only effecting part of the population then there's your answer.

Renters and young owner occupiers think its a bad idea, older owner occupiers are in favour.....and shortly I will exclusively reveal ursine defecation habits.....

One would have thought the people most in favour are hose likely to inherit a substantial asset. What help are rising prices to the elderly, other than being able to be used to get their children to be nice to them?

Those children could well be pensioners (Or at least over 50) themselves though given today's life expectancies...

Especially important for the sort of people who don't want to start having kids until they've got their nest sorted out.

Peter_the_Punter

RichardNabavi said:

surbiton said:

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

What, not this guy?

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rick-perry-goes-national-praises-rick-scott-and-susana-martinez

OMG....spare us.

TGOHF

Pulpstar said:

I've still got a hope for Rand Paul - on at 33s...

Yep - double whammy - pay out plus the handwringers frothing into their soy milk lattes.

Wonder if he would win the Nobel peace prize for doing ferk all ?

Sean_F

RichardNabavi said:

surbiton said:

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

What, not this guy?

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rick-perry-goes-national-praises-rick-scott-and-susana-martinez

How about Christine O'Donnell?

RichardNabavi

Peter_the_Punter said:

RichardNabavi said:

surbiton said:

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

What, not this guy?

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rick-perry-goes-national-praises-rick-scott-and-susana-martinez

OMG....spare us.

Not at all, I made good money laying Rick, at one point at ludicrously short odds.

Peter_the_Punter

RichardNabavi said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

RichardNabavi said:

surbiton said:

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

What, not this guy?

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rick-perry-goes-national-praises-rick-scott-and-susana-martinez

OMG....spare us.

Not at all, I made good money laying Rick, at one point at ludicrously short odds.

And Newt, and Michelle, and Sarah, and Donald, and Hermann, and the other Rick......

No wonder you can afford a bigger house!

AlastairMeeks

This is my favourite Rick Perry moment:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/photo-rick-perry-corndog2.jpg

Sadly, it's a photoshop.

TGOHF

MrJones said:

The left half of the political class want to import millions of new voters. The people who own the right half want to import millions of workers to drive down wages. Hence both halves colluding in unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public and thereby massively increasing the demand for housing. They can't meet that demand openly because that would involve the political class stopping lying about their intentions. Hence the ongoing housing crisis.

Yet look at the total no of Labour voters between 1997-2010 , down 5 million.

If new immigrants are voting Labour then not many of those that were here before 1997 are.

RichardNabavi

@Peter_the_Punter - I think a speculative few quid on Susana Martinez at this point might not be a bad idea (I think you might have mentioned her name as well?), at long odds only obviously. VP nominee is more likely, but she ticks a lot of boxes and might be a survivor if some of the bigger names fall by the wayside or withdraw for health or personal reasons.

dr_spyn

BBC picking up on that non story from Falkirk. No link on this yet.

LATEST:Ex-Chancellor Alistair Darling calls for full inquiry into allegations Labour's candidate selection process was rigged in Falkirk.

POUWAS.

Anorak

antifrank said:

This is my favourite Rick Perry moment:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/photo-rick-perry-corndog2.jpg

Sadly, it's a photoshop.

Can we get a NSFW tag on that!

Scrapheap_as_was

Piffle, tosh and bunkum.

This is a classic case of say one thing to a pollster and then go home to check on zoopla how much ones property empire is now worth.....

Let alone that it is London prices versus the rest at the moment anyway...

perdix

CarlottaVance said:

Who are 'Inside Housing' who commissioned this poll?

Oh yes:

"Inside Housing is the leading weekly magazine for housing professionals in the UK and the first choice for anyone looking for a job in housing. With its lively mix of news, features and analysis, housing professionals rely on Inside Housing to keep them fully updated on everything in the social housing world. "

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6500161

I guess that's why they didn't ask the 'falling house prices' question.....

Meanwhile (net favourable)

'Good thing for me personally'
Owner/Occupier: +11
Renter: -65

And among owner/occupiers:
16-34: -20
35-55: +21
55+: +28

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Ipsos-MORI-SRI-Inside-Housing-house-prices-tables.pdf

The more private housing (to own or to rent) the fewer jobs potential in social housing. They don't want private house building to succeed.

TGOHF

Sam Cam sports a Sari with a poppy ..

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/article/TMG10425244/Sari-sporting-Samantha-Cameron-blends-in-at-Diwali-celebrations.html

MrJones

TGOHF said:

MrJones said:

The left half of the political class want to import millions of new voters. The people who own the right half want to import millions of workers to drive down wages. Hence both halves colluding in unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public and thereby massively increasing the demand for housing. They can't meet that demand openly because that would involve the political class stopping lying about their intentions. Hence the ongoing housing crisis.

Yet look at the total no of Labour voters between 1997-2010 , down 5 million.

If new immigrants are voting Labour then not many of those that were here before 1997 are.

For the Left it's bad short-term (beacause they lose existing voters at a faster rate) but good long-term.

For the Right it's good short-term (lower wage costs) and bad long-term (because it ends with a permanent left majority).

(See California for details.)

Pulpstar

Peter_the_Punter said:

RichardNabavi said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

RichardNabavi said:

surbiton said:

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

What, not this guy?

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rick-perry-goes-national-praises-rick-scott-and-susana-martinez

OMG....spare us.

Not at all, I made good money laying Rick, at one point at ludicrously short odds.

And Newt, and Michelle, and Sarah, and Donald, and Hermann, and the other Rick......

No wonder you can afford a bigger house!

Baked beans on toast for both of us tonight Peter !

TGOHF

MrJones said:

TGOHF said:

MrJones said:

The left half of the political class want to import millions of new voters. The people who own the right half want to import millions of workers to drive down wages. Hence both halves colluding in unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public and thereby massively increasing the demand for housing. They can't meet that demand openly because that would involve the political class stopping lying about their intentions. Hence the ongoing housing crisis.

Yet look at the total no of Labour voters between 1997-2010 , down 5 million.

If new immigrants are voting Labour then not many of those that were here before 1997 are.

For the Left it's bad short-term (beacause they lose existing voters at a faster rate) but good long-term.

For the Right it's good short-term (lower wage costs) and bad long-term (because it ends with a permanent left majority).

(See California for details.)

Has anyone ever done an effnick based poll in the Uk ?

Peter_the_Punter

RichardNabavi said:

@Peter_the_Punter - I think a speculative few quid on Susana Martinez at this point might not be a bad idea (I think you might have mentioned her name as well?), at long odds only obviously. VP nominee is more likely, but she ticks a lot of boxes and might be a survivor if some of the bigger names fall by the wayside or withdraw for health or personal reasons.

Shhh...you are stealing my thunder, Richard.

She's my dark horse, but rather less dark now that you have piped up.

RichardNabavi

Peter_the_Punter said:

Shhh...you are stealing my thunder, Richard.

She's my dark horse, but rather less dark now that you have piped up.

Oops, sorry, I'll shut up..

TGOHF

tim said:

TGOHF said:

Sam Cam sports a Sari with a poppy ..

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/article/TMG10425244/Sari-sporting-Samantha-Cameron-blends-in-at-Diwali-celebrations.html

That's Dave's cummerbund

Harsh ! Very bad sartorial form to wear a non black cummerbund - only rugby players and "hilarious" students stoop so low. Perhaps one of your cruellest insults on pb.com..

Peter_the_Punter

RichardNabavi said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Shhh...you are stealing my thunder, Richard.

She's my dark horse, but rather less dark now that you have piped up.

Oops, sorry, I'll shut up..

People have been moderated for less.... ;-)

Richard_Tyndall

One of the problems with the whole housebuilding issue is that the Government have folded in the face of house-builder's blackmail concerning the planning laws. It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012). They have simply used the downturn as an excuse to strong-arm the government into changes to the planning laws so they can make more profit in the future.

Peter_the_Punter

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

RichardNabavi said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

RichardNabavi said:

surbiton said:

Chris Christie or Jeb Bush are the two only realistic chances the GOP has of winning 2016.

What, not this guy?

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rick-perry-goes-national-praises-rick-scott-and-susana-martinez

OMG....spare us.

Not at all, I made good money laying Rick, at one point at ludicrously short odds.

And Newt, and Michelle, and Sarah, and Donald, and Hermann, and the other Rick......

No wonder you can afford a bigger house!

Baked beans on toast for both of us tonight Peter !

We can blame the ground, Pulpy. Always a good get out.

RichardNabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012).

No they weren't 'sitting' on anything like that number. About half of those were plots where they were in the process of building. A lot of the rest were plots on big developments where the whole scheme is being built progressively over 3-5 years. Some would not have been viable because of mortgage lending problems (now fixed, thanks to Osborne). Some would still have planning issues outstanding, or be waiting on infrastructure development.

Housebuilders are not likely gratuitously to tie up capital: they want to turn it over as rapidly as possible, like any other business.

AndyJS

Looks like I might have unearthed another seat UKIP would have won in the local elections this year: Camborne & Redruth.

Estimates:

UKIP: 4,676
Ind: 4,204
Con: 4,015
Lab: 3,685
LD: 1,417
Mebyon Kernow: 1,062
Green: 523
Liberal: 143

Richard_Tyndall

RichardNabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012).

No they weren't 'sitting' on anything like that number. About half of those were plots where they were in the process of building. A lot of the rest were plots on big developments where the whole scheme is being built progressively over 3-5 years.

So said the developers. What a surprise. From the telegraph last September:

"Sir Merrick Cockell, the LGA’s chairman, said the figures “should finally lay to rest the myth that the lack of new homes being built is the fault of the planning system”.
He said: “Even if planning departments did not receive another new home application for the next three years, there are sufficient approved developments ready to go to last until 2016 at the current rate of construction.

“Councils are also playing their part to unlock stalled sites by contributing land and assets, forming partnerships with developers and overwhelmingly saying ‘yes' to growth through the planning system.”

The LGA found evidence builders were taking longer than ever to complete work on site, with the longest taking nearly nine years from permission to homes being built.

The average time taken for a project to move from planning permission to completion has lengthened from 20 months in 2007/08 to 25 months in 2011/12."

MrJones

The actual problem isn't NIMBYs or house-builders it's that fewer people can afford to buy an actual house and the kind of slave-shed housing density you get hidden away from public view in the inner cities (e.g. loads of families living in empty office buildings) isn't acceptable out in the open yet. That's the gist of it. The plantation economy the political class is building requires slave-shed housing densities and we're in the transition period.

If the housing regs were torn up to the extent that the house-builders could build slave-sheds on the green belt then they'd be up in a flash cos they could make money on that - just not on actual houses like they used to.

Anorak

MrJones said:

The plantation economy the political class is building requires slave-shed housing densities and we're in the transition period.

I assume you're best buddies with Tapestry.

Slackbladder

Richard_Tyndall said:

RichardNabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012).

No they weren't 'sitting' on anything like that number. About half of those were plots where they were in the process of building. A lot of the rest were plots on big developments where the whole scheme is being built progressively over 3-5 years.

The LGA found evidence builders were taking longer than ever to complete work on site, with the longest taking nearly nine years from permission to homes being built.

The average time taken for a project to move from planning permission to completion has lengthened from 20 months in 2007/08 to 25 months in 2011/12."

Anyone would think we had a credit crunch in the last 5 years...

CarlottaVance

tim said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn
What will happen to dangerous suspects when all TPIMs expire next year, asks @HazelBlearsMP? No real answer from Theresa May.

Yes there was 'same thing that happened to the 46 people whose Control Orders expired......'

MrJones

Anorak said:

MrJones said:

The plantation economy the political class is building requires slave-shed housing densities and we're in the transition period.

I assume you're best buddies with Tapestry.

That's one possibility. Another is I have rellies who still work where I used to and they tell me about landlords renting out empty office space as housing or what used to be family homes now split into 10' by 10' "flats" with a family in each.

It's the new normal.

RichardNabavi

@Richard_Tyndall

The Telegraph quoting councillors who were bitching because some of their powers might be curtailed? Well well, that's it then, what could be more authoritative than that?

We've been through all this in 2004 and again in 2008, when the Kate Barker and Office of Fair Trading investigated. In both cases they found it was a myth then (when prices were rising fast, of course), and nothing has changed except that land prices fell significantly after the crash. Some smart builders took a gamble and bought land when it was cheap: good for them, but they're not 'hoarding' it, they're trying their damnedest to build and sell houses now that the market has, at last, recovered a bit.

CarlottaVance

Richard_Tyndall said:

It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012).

Nope.....

"The 400,000 sites sitting in landbanks have been earmarked for potential development, but this doesn't mean that developers currently want to build on the land.

There are however 60,000 projects which are currently live and waiting on council planning decisions for specific developments, and it is this backlog which might prove the more immediate source of joy for officials looking to increase the number of homes being built - if they can manage to clear it."

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_400000_homes_with_planning_permission_lying_unbuilt-29167

CarlottaVance

One of the striking questions put to May from a Labour MP (tho not the daftest, one Tory MP wanted to ban the Burqa - he was told, in the nicest way Theresa can manage, i.e., not much, to Foxtrot Oscar) was 'what happens to these prisoners when their jail term expires?'

Er....they're released from prison. That's the way we do things in this country.....

The party of 90 day detention without trial walks this land yet.....

JohnO

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012).

Nope.....

"The 400,000 sites sitting in landbanks have been earmarked for potential development, but this doesn't mean that developers currently want to build on the land.

There are however 60,000 projects which are currently live and waiting on council planning decisions for specific developments, and it is this backlog which might prove the more immediate source of joy for officials looking to increase the number of homes being built - if they can manage to clear it."

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_400000_homes_with_planning_permission_lying_unbuilt-29167

Declares a non-prejudicial, non pecuniary interest on this topic.

I'm interested in this 60,000 projects figure and why it is perceived as a problem. Of course applicants have to wait between submitting an application to the Council and the decision whether it has been permitted or refused (and if the latter than there is a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate).

But this time gap is only a matter of a few weeks - I think it's 8 max according to govt expectations - so that shouldn't really be much of an impediment, should it?

AndyJS

Cornwall constituency results, using May 2013 local elections:

Camborne & Redruth:

UKIP: 4,676
Ind: 4,204
Con: 4,015
Lab: 3,685
LD: 1,417
MK: 1,062
Green: 523
Lib: 143

Cornwall North:

LD: 10,778
Con: 5,064
Ind: 2,816
UKIP: 2,707
Lab: 735
MK: 521
Green: 185
Others: 799

Cornwall South East:

LD: 7,643
Con: 7,018
UKIP: 5,525
Ind: 4,137
MK: 920
Lab: 534
Green: 140
Others: 193

St Austell & Newquay:

Con: 5,222
Ind: 4,938
LD: 4,608
MK: 2,444
Lab: 1,518
UKIP: 1,464
Green: 62
Others: 628

St Ives:

Con: 6,426
Ind: 4,824
UKIP: 4,806
LD: 3,286
Green: 2,367
Lab: 2,137
MK: 670

Truro & Falmouth:

Ind: 8,071
Con: 6,446
LD: 3,342
Lab: 2,774
UKIP: 2,128
MK: 905
Green: 680
Others: 283

Richard_Tyndall

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012).

Nope.....

"The 400,000 sites sitting in landbanks have been earmarked for potential development, but this doesn't mean that developers currently want to build on the land.

There are however 60,000 projects which are currently live and waiting on council planning decisions for specific developments, and it is this backlog which might prove the more immediate source of joy for officials looking to increase the number of homes being built - if they can manage to clear it."

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_400000_homes_with_planning_permission_lying_unbuilt-29167

Your 'nope' doesn't match the quotes you then use. In fact those quotes support exactly what I said. If the developers have 400,000 plots in landbanks they should be building on those not holding out for more profitable (and in many cases more destructive) planning permissions. Many of those planning applications awaiting permission were and are highly contentious and the developers have been using the need for greater housebuilding to get them forced through rather than making use of the existing permissions.

The Growth Point development at Newark for over 3,100 extra houses (out of a total planned of 14,000) was passed (against the wishes of the local community) in 2011 and since then not a single bit of work has been done - and I include in that any further pre development works as I am directly involved in those from an archaeological point of view and so am aware of everything going on on site.

Yet the developers who fought so hard for these permissions are still making further applications for new developments having made no moves to advance the ones they already have.

MikeK

With these rising house prices in London, I'm going into the Tent and Yurt business.
Tents for summer; Yurts for winter. First orders taken in Dirty Dicks at PB's next do.

Don't forget to order your rancid butter for Yurt use in winter. Keeps you warmer than central heating. Give the "Big Six" energy suppliers a smack in the eye.

CarlottaVance

Richard_Tyndall said:

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

It was not necessary to change the planning laws to kick start building as the developers were already sitting on huge tracts of land with planning permission (Equivalent to 400,000 houses as of the end of 2012).

Nope.....

"The 400,000 sites sitting in landbanks have been earmarked for potential development, but this doesn't mean that developers currently want to build on the land.

There are however 60,000 projects which are currently live and waiting on council planning decisions for specific developments, and it is this backlog which might prove the more immediate source of joy for officials looking to increase the number of homes being built - if they can manage to clear it."

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_400000_homes_with_planning_permission_lying_unbuilt-29167

Your 'nope' doesn't match the quotes you then use. In fact those quotes support exactly what I said.

Try reading the whole article.....

"while there is still a gap between the number of sites ‘on hold’ and the number starting construction, the gap is a lot smaller than the 400,000 figure touted in many headlines."

RichardNabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

The Growth Point development at Newark for over 3,100 extra houses (out of a total planned of 14,000) was passed (against the wishes of the local community) in 2011 and since then not a single bit of work has been done - and I include in that any further pre development works as I am directly involved in those from an archaeological point of view and so am aware of everything going on on site.

Reality check:

Outline plans for the £1/2 billion scheme, including 3,150 homes, a 60-bed care home, community centre, two primary schools, a creche, medical centre, parkland and an industrial and business area were approved by Newark and Sherwood District Council in November [2011].
...
The company will draw up detailed planning applications for the different parts of the scheme, which must all be individually approved.

Mr Brocklehurst said: “We will look to bring in delivery partners to work with us in the coming months to ensure that we can make these plans become reality.

What on earth do you expect to happen - the diggers to arrive the week after the developers get outline planning permission for a 3000-unit development?

MrJones

AndyJS said:

Cornwall constituency results, using May 2013 local elections:

Camborne & Redruth:

UKIP: 4,676
Ind: 4,204
Con: 4,015
Lab: 3,685
LD: 1,417
MK: 1,062
Green: 523
Lib: 143

Cornwall North:

LD: 10,778
Con: 5,064
Ind: 2,816
UKIP: 2,707
Lab: 735
MK: 521
Green: 185
Others: 799

Cornwall South East:

LD: 7,643
Con: 7,018
UKIP: 5,525
Ind: 4,137
MK: 920
Lab: 534
Green: 140
Others: 193

St Austell & Newquay:

Con: 5,222
Ind: 4,938
LD: 4,608
MK: 2,444
Lab: 1,518
UKIP: 1,464
Green: 62
Others: 628

St Ives:

Con: 6,426
Ind: 4,824
UKIP: 4,806
LD: 3,286
Green: 2,367
Lab: 2,137
MK: 670

Truro & Falmouth:

Ind: 8,071
Con: 6,446
LD: 3,342
Lab: 2,774
UKIP: 2,128
MK: 905
Green: 680
Others: 283

Those are good examples of how it's close 3-way or 4-way splits where UKIP's non-lumpy vote disadvantage is at a minimum.

CarlottaVance

Will Ed be brave?

"The majority of the British public – including the majority of Conservative voters – support nationalising the energy and rail companies."

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Miss Vance, a majority also want to reintroduce hanging and leave the EU.

CarlottaVance

@tim - will Ed be brave?

JohnO

CarlottaVance said:

@tim - will Ed be brave?

As brave as he is on Falkirk?
As brave as he is on HS 2?

Not too hopeful on the bravery stakes.

dr_spyn

Off message former Chancellor of Exchequer...took BBC long enough to add the story.

"A former Labour chancellor has added his voice to calls for a new inquiry to be carried out into vote-rigging claims in Falkirk. Alistair Darling said it was clear the original Labour Party inquiry "didn't have all the facts"".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24811654

Mr Darling told BBC Scotland he believed something had "gone very wrong in Falkirk" and there "needed to be a thorough investigation".

He said: "I understand the police are looking at it now. If the police decide to proceed they will send a report to the procurator fiscal and then it goes through the criminal justice system.

Nothing to see, nothing to see, move on, non story..cont page 94. POUWAS

Richard_Tyndall

RichardNabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

The Growth Point development at Newark for over 3,100 extra houses (out of a total planned of 14,000) was passed (against the wishes of the local community) in 2011 and since then not a single bit of work has been done - and I include in that any further pre development works as I am directly involved in those from an archaeological point of view and so am aware of everything going on on site.

Reality check:

Outline plans for the £1/2 billion scheme, including 3,150 homes, a 60-bed care home, community centre, two primary schools, a creche, medical centre, parkland and an industrial and business area were approved by Newark and Sherwood District Council in November [2011].
...
The company will draw up detailed planning applications for the different parts of the scheme, which must all be individually approved.

Mr Brocklehurst said: “We will look to bring in delivery partners to work with us in the coming months to ensure that we can make these plans become reality.

What on earth do you expect to happen - the diggers to arrive the week after the developers get outline planning permission for a 3000-unit development?

You really should refrain from making a fool of yourself by commenting on things you have no knowledge of Richard. If you read what I said I made it clear that I didn't expect the diggers to arrive the day after. What should happen is all the work that is outlined in the draft planning application should begin so that the full applications can be submitted. None of this has happened in the two years since outline permission was given. Nothing.

The Council would love to be able to get on with the development since they pushed for it so hard (and it cost one district councillor his seat in May). But none of the preparatory work has even started. Yet go and look at how many planning applications the developers of this particular scheme are continuing to make around the country.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

@tim - will Ed be brave?

What do you define as brave?

Being in touch with voters and putting nationalisation of the utilities in the Labour Manifesto.

No?

Me neither......

JohnO

Outline plans for the £1/2 billion scheme, including 3,150 homes, a 60-bed care home, community centre, two primary schools, a creche, medical centre, parkland and an industrial and business area were approved by Newark and Sherwood District Council in November [2011].
...
The company will draw up detailed planning applications for the different parts of the scheme, which must all be individually approved.

Mr Brocklehurst said: “We will look to bring in delivery partners to work with us in the coming months to ensure that we can make these plans become reality.

What on earth do you expect to happen - the diggers to arrive the week after the developers get outline planning permission for a 3000-unit development?

You really should refrain from making a fool of yourself by commenting on things you have no knowledge of Richard. If you read what I said I made it clear that I didn't expect the diggers to arrive the day after. What should happen is all the work that is outlined in the draft planning application should begin so that the full applications can be submitted. None of this has happened in the two years since outline permission was given. Nothing.

The Council would love to be able to get on with the development since they pushed for it so hard (and it cost one district councillor his seat in May). But none of the preparatory work has even started. Yet go and look at how many planning applications the developers of this particular scheme are continuing to make around the country.

-----
They had better get on with it fairly soon. Planning Permissions usually only last for three years, so this one should expire next November. They will then have to re-apply.