The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
How does an inflation figure spot-on target at 2% vindicate those who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy? Surely it vindicates the judgement of the BoE?
I think stodge is linking interest rates directly to house price increases. Apparently those of us in the North West (annual HPI 0.6%) have to suffer higher interest rates just to keep the London market (annual HPI 11%) under control.
Yes, unfortunately interest rates are a crude weapon but that's what we have in monetary policy and that's the price we pay for having a divergent economy. It's the same rate whether you're in London or Liverpool (that's regrettable and something which we should look at though I don't have a solution).
I fully appreciate that tackling a problem in one region risks exacerbating another problem in another region. Avery and those of his ilk are claiming recovery is spreading out across the land and all will enjoy significant good times (given steadfast voting) for decades to come but the truth is that there is already a problem in London (there always has been in truth) with housing supply and demand and the current rampant house price inflation not only reflects this but has been accentuated by current monetary policy.
I'm dubious about using interest rates to control house prices since it has so much damage elsewhere in the economy. Much better to moderate HPI through the BoEs macroprudential control of lending criteria. |
Also if lots of people want to live in London then prices are going to go up no matter what you do with interest rates. Much better to encourage them companies to move out of London to elsewhere in the UK where their employees can enjoy a higher standard of living.
I wonder what Tories will think about Lib Dems in about say 3 years time. If in 2015 Labour do win a majority, taking over a recovering economy, the Tories are going to feel pretty fed up. The Lib Dems blocked their attempts to change the number of constituencies, with boundary changes, so that every MP had roughly the same number of electors. They now have a Labour government with a majority, only having scored about the same number of votes, who are benefitting from a period of growth in the economy, by implementing some popular policies. Although still having a large debt, but a lower deficit, which they fund by implementing higher taxes on wealth.
In this situation, the Tories are going to be pretty annoyed with the Lib Dems, as the coalition period has proved a disaster for them, with little being shown for their efforts in getting the budget deficit down. The one policy area of making FPTP fairer, which would have helped the Tories, was blocked by the Lib Dems. Most Tories are going to feel pretty annoyed, as Labour enjoy government, with no intention of implementing significant boundary changes.
There was a convergence between the two parties after 2005 as a consequence of the repositioning of the Conservatives under Cameron and later the Liberal Democrats under Clegg such that by 2010 there were a number of policy areas where there was significant agreement between the two leadership factions of the two parties. That in turn was the legacy of 13 years of centralising authoritarian Labour Government and the desperation of the Conservatives to get back into power after an unprecedented period (under Universal Suffrage) of Opposition.
There were elements in both parties which never supported this convergence - on the LD side, these either went off to Labour or left the party or are the core of Tim Farron's supporters. On the Conservative side, a few went to UKIP while others simply worked to make the Coalition unworkable.
Philosophically, and in an attempt to manage their parties, Cameron and Clegg have diverged publicly (though I suspect less so privately). In the event of defeat in 2015, both will be finished and their factions thrown out to the margins. It will be "business as usual" as the Conservatives move towards and eventually absorb UKIP while the LDs head back to the centre-left and that will be that for a couple of generations.
I wonder what Tories will think about Lib Dems in about say 3 years time. If in 2015 Labour do win a majority, taking over a recovering economy, the Tories are going to feel pretty fed up. The Lib Dems blocked their attempts to change the number of constituencies, with boundary changes, so that every MP had roughly the same number of electors. They now have a Labour government with a majority, only having scored about the same number of votes, who are benefitting from a period of growth in the economy, by implementing some popular policies. Although still having a large debt, but a lower deficit, which they fund by implementing higher taxes on wealth.
In this situation, the Tories are going to be pretty annoyed with the Lib Dems, as the coalition period has proved a disaster for them, with little being shown for their efforts in getting the budget deficit down. The one policy area of making FPTP fairer, which would have helped the Tories, was blocked by the Lib Dems. Most Tories are going to feel pretty annoyed, as Labour enjoy government, with no intention of implementing significant boundary changes.
Boundary changes were killed because Lords Reform was. You don't need to agree with the lib dem thinking on Lords Reform to know that was quite obviously the cause and effect. The Cameroon thinking was that Lords Reform was a price worth paying for Boundary Changes. The tory backbenches did not agree. There is much they still do not agree with Cammie on (which we saw with the Syria debacle) and they are certain to start pushing the tory leadership harder than ever as 2015 and a possible end to their time in power gets ever closer.
Not that Cameron will be alone. As lib dem MPs in less than safe seats stare down the barrel of a 2015 election, they will be less than inclined to toe the Clegg line on a great many things.
Higher interest rates would be good for the economy. Near zero rates are, of course, really a sign-of policy / market failure. Savers are punished, borrowers (incl the reckless) are rewarded. I'm not saying we want 5% or anything - but the returns on savings are destructive right now. Negative in real terms. The real measure of the health or our recovering economy will be to see when we can again sustain non-bubble-inflating rates.
I find the latest set of tractor statistics from Comrade Setholov of this parish of interest. Inflation at 2% (good), house prices rising 6.4% (not so good), wages rising (not sure). The disparity between income and affordability grows yet wider as our old friends supply and demand do battle in the housing marketplace. The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
Stodgius
Plumpton never one of my favourites. Keep to Lingfield and Fontwell, with Brighton only if you really must.
As to house prices, you have cherry picked the rise for first time buyers rather than the UK average of 5.4%, but this is not significant. What should be celebrated is that house prices have reacted to Carney's warnings about overheating and the rate of growth has abated. We still need to see another 5-10% short term increase across the board to get owners who bought in the mid noughties to put their houses on the market when needing to sell. At present they are holding back waiting to for house prices to rise above their original purchase price.
It is important to understand that the current rises in house prices are not, as in previous 'booms' being driven by an expansion in the volume of credit supply. The reason for increasing prices is a mismatch between demand and supply.
Director of Research at Hometrack, Richard Donnell, said: "Demand grew at the fastest rate for three years while the supply of homes for sale grew at the lowest level recorded over the 12 year history of the survey.
"Scarcity of supply was the result of higher sales volumes eroding the stock of homes for sale.
A 5-10% increase over 2014 followed by a return to house price growth at or just above the rate of inflation is what the good doctor is prescribing.
On Cost of Living, the Household Real Disposable Index has improved over the past two quarters and is forecast to continue improving during 2014. And this applies without taking into account any unplanned stimulus that Osborne may introduce in the March budget. So although we are not all being turned into millionaires overnight, household net disposable income is slowly improving and this will be underpinning strong recoveries in confidence readings in the polls.
On interest rates, without inflationary pressures and with the 'output gap' in the economy yet remaining to be closed there is lessening pressure on the BoE to raise interest rates earlier than planned.
Higher interest rates would be good for the economy. Near zero rates are, of course, really a sign-of policy / market failure. Savers are punished, borrowers (incl the reckless) are rewarded. I'm not saying we want 5% or anything - but the returns on savings are destructive right now. Negative in real terms. The real measure of the health or our recovering economy will be to see when we can again sustain non-bubble-inflating rates.
Increased interest rates are fine, if the underlying affordability of mortgages is managed so that people can live with them.
That will require very careful management, and will take a considerable (5-10 years) at least of time...not to mention a recovery in wage increases.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
That's an excellent point, Mr Flashman (Deceased). Mrs Stodge and I know that if and when we come to sell Stodge Towers in downtown East Ham, our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
Down Beckton way there are a number of one and two bedroom flats on estates almost all of which are rented. With the coming of the DLR and Gallions Reach shopping centre, they are ideal renting properties.
Once again we see the disparity between the theory of macro-economic management and the practice of what's happening in a given area given local factors.
I wonder what Tories will think about Lib Dems in about say 3 years time. If in 2015 Labour do win a majority, taking over a recovering economy, the Tories are going to feel pretty fed up. The Lib Dems blocked their attempts to change the number of constituencies, with boundary changes, so that every MP had roughly the same number of electors. They now have a Labour government with a majority, only having scored about the same number of votes, who are benefitting from a period of growth in the economy, by implementing some popular policies. Although still having a large debt, but a lower deficit, which they fund by implementing higher taxes on wealth.
In this situation, the Tories are going to be pretty annoyed with the Lib Dems, as the coalition period has proved a disaster for them, with little being shown for their efforts in getting the budget deficit down. The one policy area of making FPTP fairer, which would have helped the Tories, was blocked by the Lib Dems. Most Tories are going to feel pretty annoyed, as Labour enjoy government, with no intention of implementing significant boundary changes.
Boundary changes were killed because Lords Reform was. You don't need to agree with the lib dem thinking on Lords Reform to know that was quite obviously the cause and effect. The Cameroon thinking was that Lords Reform was a price worth paying for Boundary Changes. The tory backbenches did not agree. There is much they still do not agree with Cammie on (which we saw with the Syria debacle) and they are certain to start pushing the tory leadership harder than ever as 2015 and a possible end to their time in power gets ever closer.
Not that Cameron will be alone. As lib dem MPs in less than safe seats stare down the barrel of a 2015 election, they will be less than inclined to toe the Clegg line on a great many things.
I thought the boundary reform failed because of the measure to reduce from MPs to 600 in the same bill. That was the quid-pro-quo that the LDs couldn't take as it would disproportionately affect them. I seem to recall they were actually OK with the boundary changes in principle (because it wouldn't harm them).
Higher interest rates would be good for the economy. Near zero rates are, of course, really a sign-of policy / market failure. Savers are punished, borrowers (incl the reckless) are rewarded. I'm not saying we want 5% or anything - but the returns on savings are destructive right now. .
But those savings were probably earned during the boom times on transactions that were over valued. Someone who sold their house at the peak is not a virtuous saver, they have benefited from the same credit boom that everyone else did.
All we are seeing now with negative interest rates is that much of our money was 'falsely' earned and depended on work that had no real value.
Higher interest rates would be good for the economy. Near zero rates are, of course, really a sign-of policy / market failure. Savers are punished, borrowers (incl the reckless) are rewarded. I'm not saying we want 5% or anything - but the returns on savings are destructive right now. Negative in real terms. The real measure of the health or our recovering economy will be to see when we can again sustain non-bubble-inflating rates.
Increased interest rates are fine, if the underlying affordability of mortgages is managed so that people can live with them.
That will require very careful management, and will take a considerable (5-10 years) at least of time...not to mention a recovery in wage increases.
Higher interest rates would put some mortgage holders under severe pressure. (They over-borrowed). Many houses these days are owned outright though. And rising rates WOULD put downward pressure on house proces. So, probably, a rate rise might make housing more affordable in many areas.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
This is irrelevant for this discussion, but personally I have two things I want from any changed system: 1) To be able to choose a candidate, as we do at the moment, and not a party; 2) Any new system should give political parties less power, not more.
Choose a candidate, as we do at the moment? You should write out 100 times "FPTP is functionally equivalent to a closed list of one."
Plumpton never one of my favourites. Keep to Lingfield and Fontwell, with Brighton only if you really must.
As to house prices, you have cherry picked the rise for first time buyers rather than the UK average of 5.4%, but this is not significant. What should be celebrated is that house prices have reacted to Carney's warnings about overheating and the rate of growth has abated. We still need to see another 5-10% short term increase across the board to get owners who bought in the mid noughties to put their houses on the market when needing to sell. At present they are holding back waiting to for house prices to rise above their original purchase price.
It is important to understand that the current rises in house prices are not, as in previous 'booms' being driven by an expansion in the volume of credit supply. The reason for increasing prices is a mismatch between demand and supply.
Director of Research at Hometrack, Richard Donnell, said: "Demand grew at the fastest rate for three years while the supply of homes for sale grew at the lowest level recorded over the 12 year history of the survey.
"Scarcity of supply was the result of higher sales volumes eroding the stock of homes for sale.
A 5-10% increase over 2014 followed by a return to house price growth at or just above the rate of inflation is what the good doctor is prescribing.
On Cost of Living, the Household Real Disposable Index has improved over the past two quarters and is forecast to continue improving during 2014. And this applies without taking into account any unplanned stimulus that Osborne may introduce in the March budget. So although we are not all being turned into millionaires overnight, household net disposable income is slowly improving and this will be underpinning strong recoveries in confidence readings in the polls.
On interest rates, without inflationary pressures and with the 'output gap' in the economy yet remaining to be closed there is lessening pressure on the BoE to raise interest rates earlier than planned.
All Power to the Glorious Osbornian Revolution and the Master Architect of the Economic Restoration ! (apparently)
Your knowledge of racecourses matches if not exceeds your knowledge of economics it seems.
Well at least you've acknowledged the point about supply and demand. In London, I would argue most properties are close to if not already above pre-2008 levels based on actual sales figures as distinct from what goes in an estate agent's window.
The rationale for moving on interest rates isn't just about inflation and the interest rate mechanism is as much about being proactive rather than reactive. Rates should be rising now to try and cool demand in the London housing market but a gradualist approach to a normalising of monetary policy is surely preferable to a sharp post-election rise by which time overheating will be a fact not a theory.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
If they're letting the house it'll help keep down the prices in the rental market. Why should the government intervene to help people who want to live in a house they own and screw people who want to live in a house they rent?
I thought the boundary reform failed because of the measure to reduce from MPs to 600 in the same bill. That was the quid-pro-quo that the LDs couldn't take as it would disproportionately affect them. I seem to recall they were actually OK with the boundary changes in principle (because it wouldn't harm them).
It is of no consequence if tories put all the blame on the lib dems. Rest assured most of them put all the blame on the tories. We all know the two issues were linked by Clegg and that the Cameron leadership was prepared to accept Lords Reform to get their precious Boundary Changes. Who thinks who was most principled or not is very much beside the point. The Cameroon leadership wanted one thing and it self-evidently didn't get it. Nor did Clegg get his Lords Reform. It is extremely unlikely that will be the last time both parties will have to put up with the consequences of their actions. If that outcome was so unacceptable to both parties then they should have nailed it down long before they did and made certain both sides could get what they wanted. They failed to do so.
I thought the boundary reform failed because of the measure to reduce from MPs to 600 in the same bill. That was the quid-pro-quo that the LDs couldn't take as it would disproportionately affect them. I seem to recall they were actually OK with the boundary changes in principle (because it wouldn't harm them).
It is of no consequence if tories put all the blame on the lib dems. Rest assured most of them put all the blame on the tories. We all know the two issues were linked by Clegg and that the Cameron leadership was prepared to accept Lords Reform to get their precious Boundary Changes. Who thinks who was most principled or not is very much beside the point. The Cameroon leadership wanted one thing and it self-evidently didn't get it. Nor did Clegg get his Lords Reform. It is extremely unlikely that will be the last time both parties will have to put up with the consequences of their actions. If that outcome was so unacceptable to both parties then they should have nailed it down long before they did and made certain both sides could get what they wanted. They failed to do so.
Fully agree Mick. Dave screwed up by being stupidly naive. If he wanted boundary reform that badly he should have fought the MP numbers issues another day. He lost 20 seats or so through sheer incompetence.
I wonder what Tories will think about Lib Dems in about say 3 years time. If in 2015 Labour do win a majority, taking over a recovering economy, the Tories are going to feel pretty fed up. The Lib Dems blocked their attempts to change the number of constituencies, with boundary changes, so that every MP had roughly the same number of electors. They now have a Labour government with a majority, only having scored about the same number of votes, who are benefitting from a period of growth in the economy, by implementing some popular policies. Although still having a large debt, but a lower deficit, which they fund by implementing higher taxes on wealth.
In this situation, the Tories are going to be pretty annoyed with the Lib Dems, as the coalition period has proved a disaster for them, with little being shown for their efforts in getting the budget deficit down. The one policy area of making FPTP fairer, which would have helped the Tories, was blocked by the Lib Dems. Most Tories are going to feel pretty annoyed, as Labour enjoy government, with no intention of implementing significant boundary changes.
Boundary changes were killed because Lords Reform was. You don't need to agree with the lib dem thinking on Lords Reform to know that was quite obviously the cause and effect. The Cameroon thinking was that Lords Reform was a price worth paying for Boundary Changes. The tory backbenches did not agree. There is much they still do not agree with Cammie on (which we saw with the Syria debacle) and they are certain to start pushing the tory leadership harder than ever as 2015 and a possible end to their time in power gets ever closer.
Not that Cameron will be alone. As lib dem MPs in less than safe seats stare down the barrel of a 2015 election, they will be less than inclined to toe the Clegg line on a great many things.
I thought the boundary reform failed because of the measure to reduce from MPs to 600 in the same bill. That was the quid-pro-quo that the LDs couldn't take as it would disproportionately affect them. I seem to recall they were actually OK with the boundary changes in principle (because it wouldn't harm them).
Both changes would screw the LibDems. Fewer seats means even less proportionality, and tighter variation tolerances mean frequent boundary changes that mess with their incumbency.
The problem getting it passed was that a lot of Tories didn't want their seats tinkered with either, and the ones who did want it didn't want it enough to justify giving the LibDems Lords reform in exchange.
Probably the best chance for the Tories to win a majority is by taking advantage of the retirement of LD MPs in seats they might be able to win. So far there are five examples: Mid Dorset, Berwick, Hazel Grove, Somerton, Bath. They need the total to reach about 15.
Probably the best chance for the Tories to win a majority is by taking advantage of the retirement of LD MPs in seats they might be able to win. So far there are five examples: Mid Dorset, Berwick, Hazel Grove, Somerton, Bath. They need the total to reach about 15.
Some posters think you could add NE Fife to the list!
Of the ones you list some are more likely than others but all of them are possible except probably Bath.
Probably the best chance for the Tories to win a majority is by taking advantage of the retirement of LD MPs in seats they might be able to win. So far there are five examples: Mid Dorset, Berwick, Hazel Grove, Somerton, Bath. They need the total to reach about 15.
Some posters think you could add NE Fife to the list!
Of the ones you list some are more likely than others but all of them are possible except probably Bath.
Neil. The Tories could win Bath if they chose the right candidate.
Boris would be perfect, but in his absence Stanley or even Rachel might do.
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but Parliament has the final say, to accept or reject their proposals...
Higher interest rates would be good for the economy. Near zero rates are, of course, really a sign-of policy / market failure. Savers are punished, borrowers (incl the reckless) are rewarded. I'm not saying we want 5% or anything - but the returns on savings are destructive right now. Negative in real terms. The real measure of the health or our recovering economy will be to see when we can again sustain non-bubble-inflating rates.
Increased interest rates are fine, if the underlying affordability of mortgages is managed so that people can live with them.
That will require very careful management, and will take a considerable (5-10 years) at least of time...not to mention a recovery in wage increases.
Higher interest rates would put some mortgage holders under severe pressure. (They over-borrowed). Many houses these days are owned outright though. And rising rates WOULD put downward pressure on house proces. So, probably, a rate rise might make housing more affordable in many areas.
It's not a zero sum game though. If house prices rise (which they have done), and if wages rise (which hopefully they will), then the pressure on those people which have 'overborrowed' will lessen, and so be able to absorb interest rate rises.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
Why should the government intervene to help people who want to live in a house they own and screw people who want to live in a house they rent?
Many of those renting would prefer to buy but can't due to the rent they pay limiting the deposit they can build up and because when they try to buy, landlords are able to out bid them. At the moment the market is tipped in favour of landlords over first time buyers.
I think there is the theory of how the rental market should work and then there is the reality of how many small scale BTL landlords work and the poor service they provide.
The rental market has been one area where I think the coalition could have done much more.
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but the reform: 1) (IIRC) made the changes happen more often. (Every parliament instead of every two?) 2) Made the permissible size variation very small, which means that even the teensiest demographic change makes some seats too big and others too small, which requires a redrawing of the boundaries of those seats, and also potentially a lot of seats in between due to knock-on effects. This means that far more seats will be caught up in each change.
Probably the best chance for the Tories to win a majority is by taking advantage of the retirement of LD MPs in seats they might be able to win. So far there are five examples: Mid Dorset, Berwick, Hazel Grove, Somerton, Bath. They need the total to reach about 15.
Some posters think you could add NE Fife to the list!
Of the ones you list some are more likely than others but all of them are possible except probably Bath.
Neil. The Tories could win Bath if they chose the right candidate.
Boris would be perfect, but in his absence Stanley or even Rachel might do.
It is an 18th Century neo-classical seat.
Thr Conservatives already have a candidate chosen in Bath , their choice indicates it is a no hope seat for them .
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but Parliament has the final say, to accept or reject their proposals...
So Dave should pressure them to make proposals ASAP and put it before parliament. No doubt the proposals would fail - but at least those voting against would be doing so in the public eye.
(I also think having parliament approve this is morally wrong - insiders protecting insiders. As often mentioned I think we need a written constitution and managing elections / boundaries should not be within the remit of parliament to control). Liz should directly appoint a Lord Chief Boundary Setter, someone who has never belonged to any political party, to oversee a clear ruleset around boundaries that respond in a timely fashion to demographics).
So Dave should pressure them to make proposals ASAP and put it before parliament.
Parliament has already rejected the Boundary Commission's 6th review. It's a bit much to expect them to complete two reviews in one Parliament (and too late for it to be implemented for GE 2015 anyway).
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but Parliament has the final say, to accept or reject their proposals...
It's a nutty, bankrupt system. A 'general election' where the national votes don't matter one jot, where the Boundary Commission spend years drawing squiggles on a map, public enquiries up and down the country... and if the incumbent government don't like the look of the final squiggles... the whole effort is thrown in the bin....
Liz should directly appoint a Lord Chief Boundary Setter, someone who has never belonged to any political party, to oversee a clear ruleset around boundaries that respond in a timely fashion to demographics).
Better still, design a system where the frickin' squiggles on the map don't determine the election outcome!
and if the incumbent government don't like the look of the final squiggles... the whole effort is thrown in the bin....
No review has ever been binned because the Government disagreed with how the work was done or the final outcome though. The 6th review was rejected because Parliament (mainly the Lib Dems) changed its mind about reducing the number of seats to 600.
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but Parliament has the final say, to accept or reject their proposals...
It's a nutty, bankrupt system. A 'general election' where the national votes don't matter one jot, where the Boundary Commission spend years drawing squiggles on a map, public enquiries up and down the country... and if the incumbent government don't like the look of the final squiggles... the whole effort is thrown in the bin....
Parliament is the problem here. We need to take them out of the process.
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but Parliament has the final say, to accept or reject their proposals...
It's a nutty, bankrupt system. A 'general election' where the national votes don't matter one jot, where the Boundary Commission spend years drawing squiggles on a map, public enquiries up and down the country... and if the incumbent government don't like the look of the final squiggles... the whole effort is thrown in the bin....
Parliament is the problem here. We need to take them out of the process.
Why? Parliament has provided for exactly the kind of system you have called for. An independent judge chairs a regular review of the boundaries according to a clear set of pre-determined rules.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
Why should the government intervene to help people who want to live in a house they own and screw people who want to live in a house they rent?
Many of those renting would prefer to buy but can't due to the rent they pay limiting the deposit they can build up and because when they try to buy, landlords are able to out bid them. At the moment the market is tipped in favour of landlords over first time buyers.
You're advocating increasing rents by restricting rental supply, which would make the deposit issue you mention worse.
I think there is the theory of how the rental market should work and then there is the reality of how many small scale BTL landlords work and the poor service they provide.
The rental market has been one area where I think the coalition could have done much more.
The theory is just normal free-market economics. I don't know what service you think the landlords should be providing better, but maybe the market just doesn't want to pay for it? If renters were prepared to pay a big enough premium to use a rental company with a good reputation then those companies would be able to out-bid the private landlords.
Liz should directly appoint a Lord Chief Boundary Setter, someone who has never belonged to any political party, to oversee a clear ruleset around boundaries that respond in a timely fashion to demographics).
Better still, design a system where the frickin' squiggles on the map don't determine the election outcome!
Disagree - no public support for a more complicated process / move away from FPTP. But there is to fix boundaries, postal voting, registration, crushes at opening / closing time in polling stations, etc.
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but Parliament has the final say, to accept or reject their proposals...
It's a nutty, bankrupt system. A 'general election' where the national votes don't matter one jot, where the Boundary Commission spend years drawing squiggles on a map, public enquiries up and down the country... and if the incumbent government don't like the look of the final squiggles... the whole effort is thrown in the bin....
Parliament is the problem here. We need to take them out of the process.
Why? Parliament has provided for exactly the kind of system you have called for. An independent judge chairs a regular review of the boundaries according to a clear set of pre-determined rules.
No. I am calling for parliament to have no say in boundaries - at all.
Liz should directly appoint a Lord Chief Boundary Setter, someone who has never belonged to any political party, to oversee a clear ruleset around boundaries that respond in a timely fashion to demographics).
Better still, design a system where the frickin' squiggles on the map don't determine the election outcome!
Disagree - no public support for a more complicated process / move away from FPTP. But there is to fix boundaries, postal voting, registration, crushes at opening / closing time in polling stations, etc.
and if the incumbent government don't like the look of the final squiggles... the whole effort is thrown in the bin....
No review has ever been binned because the Government disagreed with how the work was done or the final outcome though. The 6th review was rejected because Parliament (mainly the Lib Dems) changed its mind about reducing the number of seats to 600.
The Second Review was kicked into the long grass by Labour in 1969....
FPTP works well for the Conservatives. It gives them a share of seats that far exceeds their national vote (47% of seats on 36% of the vote). It also means they don't have to share power with other right-wing parties. Cameron would hate to have to appoint Farage to the Cabinet, or negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with him.
It simply works even better for Labour.
What's your considered projection for Ukip vote share/seats at the GE ?
BTW - Are you still in Luton South ?
6-8%. 1-3 seats. I'm still in Luton South.
Thanks. Don't suppose you're willing to share which 3 seats? ;-)
I think the County Council Elections give a good steer. Seats like Thanet North and South, Thurrock, Eastleigh, Great Yarmouth, Boston & Skegness, Castle Point, Bognor Regiss & Littlehampton, offer the best prospects.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
Why should the government intervene to help people who want to live in a house they own and screw people who want to live in a house they rent?
Many of those renting would prefer to buy but can't due to the rent they pay limiting the deposit they can build up and because when they try to buy, landlords are able to out bid them. At the moment the market is tipped in favour of landlords over first time buyers.
You're advocating increasing rents by restricting rental supply, which would make the deposit issue you mention worse.
I think there is the theory of how the rental market should work and then there is the reality of how many small scale BTL landlords work and the poor service they provide.
The rental market has been one area where I think the coalition could have done much more.
The theory is just normal free-market economics. I don't know what service you think the landlords should be providing better, but maybe the market just doesn't want to pay for it? If renters were prepared to pay a big enough premium to use a rental company with a good reputation then those companies would be able to out-bid the private landlords.
The market is not entirely free -- IDS spends a lot of dough subsidising (depending on your point of view) landlords and/or tenants.
You can't have regular votes on voting systems (or separation, for that matter). The decision has to stand until and unless something significant changes. The despicable EU habit of repeatedly asking a question until the 'right' answer emerges is not a tactic that we should adopt.
I don't like referenda anyway. There is too much power invested in the question set, so you get ridiculous options like being asked to choose between FPTP and AV, which is like being asked to choose between having your left or right eye plucked out.
Neither option is any good, but if forced to choose I'd sacrifice the right eye which is slightly weaker.
Given that one of the arguments used by the anti-AV campaign was that AV wasn't properly proportional - indeed it could end up being less proportional than FPTP - then it was ludicrous that a PR system, such as STV, wasn't on the ballot.
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
Yes, but Parliament has the final say, to accept or reject their proposals...
It's a nutty, bankrupt system. A 'general election' where the national votes don't matter one jot, where the Boundary Commission spend years drawing squiggles on a map, public enquiries up and down the country... and if the incumbent government don't like the look of the final squiggles... the whole effort is thrown in the bin....
Parliament is the problem here. We need to take them out of the process.
Why? Parliament has provided for exactly the kind of system you have called for. An independent judge chairs a regular review of the boundaries according to a clear set of pre-determined rules.
No. I am calling for parliament to have no say in boundaries - at all.
Parliament will always have a say in boundaries via the rules under which the Electoral Commission draw them up , whether to give priority for example to equalisation of electorate , keeping communities in the same constituency , taking count of natural boundaries such as river estuaries etc etc .
Liz should directly appoint a Lord Chief Boundary Setter, someone who has never belonged to any political party, to oversee a clear ruleset around boundaries that respond in a timely fashion to demographics).
Better still, design a system where the frickin' squiggles on the map don't determine the election outcome!
Disagree - no public support for a more complicated process / move away from FPTP. But there is to fix boundaries, postal voting, registration, crushes at opening / closing time in polling stations, etc.
Citation needed.
Indeed. It is very easy to confuse your own personal views with "what the public wants"
The 6th review was rejected because Parliament (mainly the Lib Dems) changed its mind about reducing the number of seats to 600.
No it was not. By section 6 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, Parliament directed that the Boundary Commissions should report in September 2018 rather than September 2013. The review had not been completed when the 2013 Act received Royal Assent on 31 January. The reduction of seats is still on the statute book and tied to the next boundary review, and another Act of Parliament will be required to change that.
@DecrepitJohn No market is entirely free, but I'm not seeing the argument for a market failure here, let alone the role of BTL landlords in it.
What I reckon we're seeing is a cultural predjudice against renting, which results in people being outraged by the normal operation of the market. (People can't afford homes, it must be someone's fault!)
The 6th review was rejected because Parliament (mainly the Lib Dems) changed its mind about reducing the number of seats to 600.
No it was not. By section 6 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, Parliament directed that the Boundary Commissions should report in September 2018 rather than September 2013. The review had not been completed when the 2013 Act received Royal Assent on 31 January. The reduction of seats is still on the statute book and tied to the next boundary review, and another Act of Parliament will be required to change that.
Yes. That, as always, is a more accurate summary of the situation than I presented!
Though a more likely scenario is a Labour vote lead of a couple of points and a straightforward majority.
As for Tories whinging about boundaries. Well perhaps they should've thought a bit harder about the merits of electoral reform rather than mindlessly shafting the Lib Dems over the issue.
maybe the LDs should have thought more about pleasing the elecorate than trying to game the system.
I cant see how the Tories shafted the Lib Dems over electoral reform. The programme for government provided for a referendum on AV without prejudice to the positions each party would take and, well, that's exactly what happened.
Though a more likely scenario is a Labour vote lead of a couple of points and a straightforward majority.
As for Tories whinging about boundaries. Well perhaps they should've thought a bit harder about the merits of electoral reform rather than mindlessly shafting the Lib Dems over the issue.
maybe the LDs should have thought more about pleasing the elecorate than trying to game the system.
Substitute Conservatives for LDs in that sentence and your post would be correct .
I cant see how the Tories shafted the Lib Dems over electoral reform. The programme for government provided for a referendum on AV without prejudice to the positions each party would take and, well, that's exactly what happened.
The Tories shafted them by winning the referendum apparently. If AV had got through then the Lib Dems would have been happy to allow the boundary changes as well, but as they lost the pretended it was all about lords reform.
Though a more likely scenario is a Labour vote lead of a couple of points and a straightforward majority.
As for Tories whinging about boundaries. Well perhaps they should've thought a bit harder about the merits of electoral reform rather than mindlessly shafting the Lib Dems over the issue.
maybe the LDs should have thought more about pleasing the elecorate than trying to game the system.
Substitute Conservatives for LDs in that sentence and your post would be correct .
No if you had stuck with no uni fees instead of dicking about with AV you'd be better off. The Tories have made their own mistakes. Likewise we'd have had HoL reform if Cleggy hadn't made such as hash of it.
The Tories proposal to reduce the number of seats to 600 was a mistake anyway. Why with an increasing population do we want even less MPs?
I'd increase their number to 1000, pay them the UK median wage and relocate them to a disused office block on a business park near Birmingham away from the Westminster circus.
Higher interest rates would be good for the economy. Near zero rates are, of course, really a sign-of policy / market failure. Savers are punished, borrowers (incl the reckless) are rewarded. I'm not saying we want 5% or anything - but the returns on savings are destructive right now. Negative in real terms. The real measure of the health or our recovering economy will be to see when we can again sustain non-bubble-inflating rates.
Increased interest rates are fine, if the underlying affordability of mortgages is managed so that people can live with them.
That will require very careful management, and will take a considerable (5-10 years) at least of time...not to mention a recovery in wage increases.
Higher interest rates would put some mortgage holders under severe pressure. (They over-borrowed). Many houses these days are owned outright though. And rising rates WOULD put downward pressure on house proces. So, probably, a rate rise might make housing more affordable in many areas.
Likewise we'd have had HoL reform if Cleggy hadn't made such as hash of it.
Clegg brought forward HoL proposals that were in line with the programme for government (single, long terms of office). The problem with HoL reform is that advocates can never agree on any particular alternative and so manage to keep the existing system in place instead.
When is the provision for recall powers over MPs going to be introduced? Time is running out...
The Tories proposal to reduce the number of seats to 600 was a mistake anyway. Why with an increasing population do we want even less MPs?
I'd increase their number to 1000, pay them the UK median wage and relocate them to a disused office block on a business park near Birmingham away from the Westminster circus.
As we know Britain suffers from an embarrassment of ministerial talent, and needs to shrink the pool they draw from to avoid being so good it makes other countries jealous.
The Tories proposal to reduce the number of seats to 600 was a mistake anyway. Why with an increasing population do we want even less MPs?
I'd increase their number to 1000, pay them the UK median wage and relocate them to a disused office block on a business park near Birmingham away from the Westminster circus.
As we know Britain suffers from an embarrassment of ministerial talent, and needs to shrink the pool they draw from to avoid being so good it makes other countries jealous.
@DecrepitJohn No market is entirely free, but I'm not seeing the argument for a market failure here, let alone the role of BTL landlords in it.
What I reckon we're seeing is a cultural predjudice against renting, which results in people being outraged by the normal operation of the market. (People can't afford homes, it must be someone's fault!)
People can't afford to rent, either, which is why IDS has to pay. And if IDS were not paying, rents would likely fall. So the government, by subsidising tenants, is subsidising landlords.
By subsidising landlords, HMG increases demand for, and thus sale prices of, houses, driving them out of the reach of "ordinary" people who must therefore rent, and round we go again.
Likewise we'd have had HoL reform if Cleggy hadn't made such as hash of it.
Clegg brought forward HoL proposals that were in line with the programme for government (single, long terms of office). The problem with HoL reform is that advocates can never agree on any particular alternative and so manage to keep the existing system in place instead.
When is the provision for recall powers over MPs going to be introduced? Time is running out...
And Cameron is an idiot for not addressing HoL reform in this Parlt. He could have helped implement reforms which would have lasted a generation and had them largely in an environment benign to himself while keeping the LDs on side. He prefers the option of carping from the sidelines if Ed gets in. He's an idiot.
The Tories proposal to reduce the number of seats to 600 was a mistake anyway. Why with an increasing population do we want even less MPs?
I'd increase their number to 1000, pay them the UK median wage and relocate them to a disused office block on a business park near Birmingham away from the Westminster circus.
It all comes down to what the point of an MP is... Under the 'pavement politics' model there are elements of being a glorified social worker; Under large majority governments it was to be 'lobby fodder' for passing whatever laws the executive wanted; Under coalition it is to try and provide a stable platform for government with agreed compromises in the open. And that's even before you get to what the point of the Lords is...
Fundamentally - should an MP represent the constituency in Westminster, or represent Westminster in the constituency? If the former, how does that equate with the pavement politics model of being 'a good local MP' which is what voters appear to appreciate?
@DecrepitJohn No market is entirely free, but I'm not seeing the argument for a market failure here, let alone the role of BTL landlords in it.
What I reckon we're seeing is a cultural predjudice against renting, which results in people being outraged by the normal operation of the market. (People can't afford homes, it must be someone's fault!)
People can't afford to rent, either, which is why IDS has to pay. And if IDS were not paying, rents would likely fall. So the government, by subsidising tenants, is subsidising landlords.
By subsidising landlords, HMG increases demand for, and thus sale prices of, houses, driving them out of the reach of "ordinary" people who must therefore rent, and round we go again.
Hmm, maybe we should build more houses or summink.
As I said the tories will blame the lib dems and the lib dems will blame the tories while those with any common sense know perfectly well that the Lords Reform/Boundary Changes debacle occurred because BOTH Cammie and Clegg are squarely to blame. It could be no other way. They are the coalition and they are responsible for party discipline as well as which issues and policies were agreed to in advance as well as which were subsequently dumped.
"only 5 per cent of British companies export to the EU (Government figures actually put it at around 2 per cent, but that excludes services and smaller exporters).
Instead of forcing all companies to comply with European legislation, we suggest that Parliament should be able to draw up a list of the most onerous regulations that companies and organisations who don’t export to the EU should be allowed to opt out of."
@DecrepitJohn No market is entirely free, but I'm not seeing the argument for a market failure here, let alone the role of BTL landlords in it.
What I reckon we're seeing is a cultural predjudice against renting, which results in people being outraged by the normal operation of the market. (People can't afford homes, it must be someone's fault!)
People can't afford to rent, either, which is why IDS has to pay. And if IDS were not paying, rents would likely fall. So the government, by subsidising tenants, is subsidising landlords.
By subsidising landlords, HMG increases demand for, and thus sale prices of, houses, driving them out of the reach of "ordinary" people who must therefore rent, and round we go again.
Hmm, maybe we should build more houses or summink.
Or even implement a Land Value Tax to encourage land to be used most economically, rather than hoarded. (Which might actually encourage people to build houses on land)
I wonder if eyebrows would be raised if the tories won the popular vote but labour won the most seats.
I guess not.
There have been elections in the UK and the US where that has been the case. IIRC, the US House of Representatives (last time around) had the Democrats leading in votes, but the Republicans having a substantial majority.
I think you need to have a really out of whack result before things get changed - i.e., a situation where Labour gets an absolute majority on 30% of the vote (which is entirely possible). We'd then have the most left wing party, attracting less than in one-in-three votes, getting more than half the seats.
If UKIP is going to get themselves into the high teens, and the LibDems get 12% or so, then you could easily end up with UKIP with (basically) no seats against 30 odd for the Libs, and the Conservatives ahead in vote, but Labour with a majority.
The more I think about it, the Conservatives should have gone for proper multi-member STV, supported it fully and then had the advantage of being able to choose their coalition partner after the next election.
And Cameron is an idiot for not addressing HoL reform in this Parlt. He could have helped implement reforms which would have lasted a generation and had them largely in an environment benign to himself while keeping the LDs on side. He prefers the option of carping from the sidelines if Ed gets in. He's an idiot.
On this, as with so many other issues, Cameron was not in control. It was his revolting backbenchers who did for the proposals.
The system favours Labour quite alot right now. The Tories may be out of power for a while. But at some point (it may not be too distant if Redward governs as he opposes) they'll get back in. The new Tory lot may recognise that the electorate has moved on and STV or PR^2 or something other than FPTP may be in their own interest. If they get locked out of power long ennough they will!
I wonder if a truly PR driven parliament would be a good thing or a bad thing for the quality of our governance?
Are there any odds available anywhere that the Tories will just win the most votes?
As far as I'm aware, not directly, the closest is that Paddy Power Market Conservatives to poll more votes and win more seats than Labour at 6/5
You can combine this with the 9/2 on Conservatives winning most votes but fewer seats to get an effective bet (odds depend on the weights chosen) on Conservatives to win most votes.
"only 5 per cent of British companies export to the EU (Government figures actually put it at around 2 per cent, but that excludes services and smaller exporters).
Instead of forcing all companies to comply with European legislation, we suggest that Parliament should be able to draw up a list of the most onerous regulations that companies and organisations who don’t export to the EU should be allowed to opt out of."
Exports as percentage of GDP were 32% in 2012, up from 28% in 2009.
Irrespective of where our exports go, they are crucially important to this country, given that we need to import more than half a million barrels of oil a day, plus natural gas and coal.
We also need to import food (and have done for 150 years).
And that's before we even get to other things like cars and electronics.
The small number of British firms who are exporters are crucially important to our way of life.
(I also doubt the 2% figure very much, I suspect it is enormously skewed by the fact that most companies are made up of group level, and operating companies, and by only measuring the operating business with the exports, you may miscount by as much as 5x).
The more I think about it, the Conservatives should have gone for proper multi-member STV, supported it fully and then had the advantage of being able to choose their coalition partner after the next election.
Which is what many of us were saying at the time. Only for all the Conservative voters to say 'no - FPTP because we want majority governments not eternal coalitions'. Almost equally culpable were those running the 'Yes to AV' campaign who didn't engage with UKIP at all and just gave the impression that they wanted eternal left governments (which isn't what AV would have done, but it's the impression that they gave)
The more I think about it, the Conservatives should have gone for proper multi-member STV, supported it fully and then had the advantage of being able to choose their coalition partner after the next election.
Which is what many of us were saying at the time. Only for all the Conservative voters to say 'no - FPTP because we want majority governments not eternal coalitions'. Almost equally culpable were those running the 'Yes to AV' campaign who didn't engage with UKIP at all and just gave the impression that they wanted eternal left governments (which isn't what AV would have done, but it's the impression that they gave)
Honestly, my plans for a Directly Elected Tyrant is the perfect electoral system.
I wonder if eyebrows would be raised if the tories won the popular vote but labour won the most seats.
I guess not.
The more I think about it, the Conservatives should have gone for proper multi-member STV, supported it fully and then had the advantage of being able to choose their coalition partner after the next election.
STV while an excellent system, would rule out overall majorities for evermore, and there is a lurking suspicion the Tories would be modestly underrepresented (see Scottish locals), although the rise of UKIP could alter that calculation.
PR^2 is a half-way house. Only first preferences count, there's no bias, there's still a winner's bonus with the possibility of a majority, and the constituency structure would essentially be a reversion to the pre-1885 (last vestiges remained until 1950) position. And voters would have a genuine choice of candidate. NPXMP could well still be NPMP under it.
Are there any odds available anywhere that the Tories will just win the most votes?
As far as I'm aware, not directly, the closest is that Paddy Power Market Conservatives to poll more votes and win more seats than Labour at 6/5
You can combine this with the 9/2 on Conservatives winning most votes but fewer seats to get an effective bet (odds depend on the weights chosen) on Conservatives to win most votes.
Good thinking that man.
Not that good thinking, the odds dont depend on the weights chosen, you pick the weights to secure the odds! Effectively about 1/2 on Tory most votes I think (with stakes of about 3:1). I've probably made a mistake in my mental arithmetic somewhere though.
I wonder if eyebrows would be raised if the tories won the popular vote but labour won the most seats.
I guess not.
The more I think about it, the Conservatives should have gone for proper multi-member STV, supported it fully and then had the advantage of being able to choose their coalition partner after the next election.
STV while an excellent system, would rule out overall majorities for evermore, and there is a lurking suspicion the Tories would be modestly underrepresented (see Scottish locals), although the rise of UKIP could alter that calculation.
PR^2 is a half-way house. Only first preferences count, there's no bias, there's still a winner's bonus with the possibility of a majority, and the constituency structure would essentially be a reversion to the pre-1885 (last vestiges remained until 1950) position. And voters would have a genuine choice of candidate. NPXMP could well still be NPMP under it.
Can you point to a wiki page or similar with details of how exactly PR^2 works in reality?
Are there any odds available anywhere that the Tories will just win the most votes?
As far as I'm aware, not directly, the closest is that Paddy Power Market Conservatives to poll more votes and win more seats than Labour at 6/5
You can combine this with the 9/2 on Conservatives winning most votes but fewer seats to get an effective bet (odds depend on the weights chosen) on Conservatives to win most votes.
Good thinking that man.
Not that good thinking, the odds dont depend on the weights chosen, you pick the weights to secure the odds! Effectively about 1/2 on Tory most votes I think (with stakes of about 3:1). I've probably made a mistake in my mental arithmetic somewhere though.
I've realised this Paddy Power we're talking about, the maximum stake on both bets is likely to be £3.87 and a smartie.
The system favours Labour quite alot right now. The Tories may be out of power for a while. But at some point (it may not be too distant if Redward governs as he opposes) they'll get back in. The new Tory lot may recognise that the electorate has moved on and STV or PR^2 or something other than FPTP may be in their own interest. If they get locked out of power long ennough they will!
I wonder if a truly PR driven parliament would be a good thing or a bad thing for the quality of our governance?
The evidence from PR countries, at least in the opinion of the voters, is quite affirmative.
The Tories proposal to reduce the number of seats to 600 was a mistake anyway. Why with an increasing population do we want even less MPs?
I'd increase their number to 1000, pay them the UK median wage and relocate them to a disused office block on a business park near Birmingham away from the Westminster circus.
As we know Britain suffers from an embarrassment of ministerial talent, and needs to shrink the pool they draw from to avoid being so good it makes other countries jealous.
What we need to do is to hire the best people in the country to be ministers, rather than just the best people in parliament.
"only 5 per cent of British companies export to the EU (Government figures actually put it at around 2 per cent, but that excludes services and smaller exporters).
Instead of forcing all companies to comply with European legislation, we suggest that Parliament should be able to draw up a list of the most onerous regulations that companies and organisations who don’t export to the EU should be allowed to opt out of."
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
If they're letting the house it'll help keep down the prices in the rental market. Why should the government intervene to help people who want to live in a house they own and screw people who want to live in a house they rent?
Because most people who are renting actually want to buy, but just can't afford it?
Higher interest rates would be good for the economy. Near zero rates are, of course, really a sign-of policy / market failure. Savers are punished, borrowers (incl the reckless) are rewarded. I'm not saying we want 5% or anything - but the returns on savings are destructive right now. Negative in real terms. The real measure of the health or our recovering economy will be to see when we can again sustain non-bubble-inflating rates.
Low interest rates are a sign of market failure in the same way as repairing your roof is the sign of roof failure. That doesn't mean the right course of action is to stop repairing your roof.
"Bernard Jenkin MP @bernardjenkin 19h EU Approvals Bill lets the EU to spend money on pro-EU propaganda even during a referendum on EU membership!! Why is our govt doing this?"
Comments
PR^2 would deliver something like
Con 304
Lab 261
LD 34
UKIP 23
SNP/PC 10
NI 18
I'm dubious about using interest rates to control house prices since it has so much damage elsewhere in the economy. Much better to moderate HPI through the BoEs macroprudential control of lending criteria. |
Also if lots of people want to live in London then prices are going to go up no matter what you do with interest rates. Much better to encourage them companies to move out of London to elsewhere in the UK where their employees can enjoy a higher standard of living.
There were elements in both parties which never supported this convergence - on the LD side, these either went off to Labour or left the party or are the core of Tim Farron's supporters. On the Conservative side, a few went to UKIP while others simply worked to make the Coalition unworkable.
Philosophically, and in an attempt to manage their parties, Cameron and Clegg have diverged publicly (though I suspect less so privately). In the event of defeat in 2015, both will be finished and their factions thrown out to the margins. It will be "business as usual" as the Conservatives move towards and eventually absorb UKIP while the LDs head back to the centre-left and that will be that for a couple of generations.
The Cameroon thinking was that Lords Reform was a price worth paying for Boundary Changes. The tory backbenches did not agree. There is much they still do not agree with Cammie on (which we saw with the Syria debacle) and they are certain to start pushing the tory leadership harder than ever as 2015 and a possible end to their time in power gets ever closer.
Not that Cameron will be alone. As lib dem MPs in less than safe seats stare down the barrel of a 2015 election, they will be less than inclined to toe the Clegg line on a great many things.
Plumpton never one of my favourites. Keep to Lingfield and Fontwell, with Brighton only if you really must.
As to house prices, you have cherry picked the rise for first time buyers rather than the UK average of 5.4%, but this is not significant. What should be celebrated is that house prices have reacted to Carney's warnings about overheating and the rate of growth has abated. We still need to see another 5-10% short term increase across the board to get owners who bought in the mid noughties to put their houses on the market when needing to sell. At present they are holding back waiting to for house prices to rise above their original purchase price.
It is important to understand that the current rises in house prices are not, as in previous 'booms' being driven by an expansion in the volume of credit supply. The reason for increasing prices is a mismatch between demand and supply.
Director of Research at Hometrack, Richard Donnell, said: "Demand grew at the fastest rate for three years while the supply of homes for sale grew at the lowest level recorded over the 12 year history of the survey.
"Scarcity of supply was the result of higher sales volumes eroding the stock of homes for sale.
A 5-10% increase over 2014 followed by a return to house price growth at or just above the rate of inflation is what the good doctor is prescribing.
On Cost of Living, the Household Real Disposable Index has improved over the past two quarters and is forecast to continue improving during 2014. And this applies without taking into account any unplanned stimulus that Osborne may introduce in the March budget. So although we are not all being turned into millionaires overnight, household net disposable income is slowly improving and this will be underpinning strong recoveries in confidence readings in the polls.
On interest rates, without inflationary pressures and with the 'output gap' in the economy yet remaining to be closed there is lessening pressure on the BoE to raise interest rates earlier than planned.
That will require very careful management, and will take a considerable (5-10 years) at least of time...not to mention a recovery in wage increases.
Down Beckton way there are a number of one and two bedroom flats on estates almost all of which are rented. With the coming of the DLR and Gallions Reach shopping centre, they are ideal renting properties.
Once again we see the disparity between the theory of macro-economic management and the practice of what's happening in a given area given local factors.
But those savings were probably earned during the boom times on transactions that were over valued. Someone who sold their house at the peak is not a virtuous saver, they have benefited from the same credit boom that everyone else did.
All we are seeing now with negative interest rates is that much of our money was 'falsely' earned and depended on work that had no real value.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
You should write out 100 times "FPTP is functionally equivalent to a closed list of one."
Your knowledge of racecourses matches if not exceeds your knowledge of economics it seems.
Well at least you've acknowledged the point about supply and demand. In London, I would argue most properties are close to if not already above pre-2008 levels based on actual sales figures as distinct from what goes in an estate agent's window.
The rationale for moving on interest rates isn't just about inflation and the interest rate mechanism is as much about being proactive rather than reactive. Rates should be rising now to try and cool demand in the London housing market but a gradualist approach to a normalising of monetary policy is surely preferable to a sharp post-election rise by which time overheating will be a fact not a theory.
The problem getting it passed was that a lot of Tories didn't want their seats tinkered with either, and the ones who did want it didn't want it enough to justify giving the LibDems Lords reform in exchange.
Of the ones you list some are more likely than others but all of them are possible except probably Bath.
Boris would be perfect, but in his absence Stanley or even Rachel might do.
It is an 18th Century neo-classical seat.
Maybe they should go for Nancy Mogg?
What is the existing law re boundary changes. Doesn't the Electoral Commission already have some onging duty to keep somewhat up-to-date with demographics?
She might have problems with the parking restrictions though.
http://www.exchange-rates.org/history/THB/GBP/G/M
Many of those renting would prefer to buy but can't due to the rent they pay limiting the deposit they can build up and because when they try to buy, landlords are able to out bid them. At the moment the market is tipped in favour of landlords over first time buyers.
I think there is the theory of how the rental market should work and then there is the reality of how many small scale BTL landlords work and the poor service they provide.
The rental market has been one area where I think the coalition could have done much more.
1) (IIRC) made the changes happen more often. (Every parliament instead of every two?)
2) Made the permissible size variation very small, which means that even the teensiest demographic change makes some seats too big and others too small, which requires a redrawing of the boundaries of those seats, and also potentially a lot of seats in between due to knock-on effects. This means that far more seats will be caught up in each change.
The poll lead is very important for our Ed - without it he would be in significant trouble IMHO.
(I also think having parliament approve this is morally wrong - insiders protecting insiders. As often mentioned I think we need a written constitution and managing elections / boundaries should not be within the remit of parliament to control). Liz should directly appoint a Lord Chief Boundary Setter, someone who has never belonged to any political party, to oversee a clear ruleset around boundaries that respond in a timely fashion to demographics).
The market is not entirely free -- IDS spends a lot of dough subsidising (depending on your point of view) landlords and/or tenants.
Neither option is any good, but if forced to choose I'd sacrifice the right eye which is slightly weaker.
Given that one of the arguments used by the anti-AV campaign was that AV wasn't properly proportional - indeed it could end up being less proportional than FPTP - then it was ludicrous that a PR system, such as STV, wasn't on the ballot.
What I reckon we're seeing is a cultural predjudice against renting, which results in people being outraged by the normal operation of the market. (People can't afford homes, it must be someone's fault!)
...the LibDem AND Fruitcake votes...
???
Tautology.
I'd increase their number to 1000, pay them the UK median wage and relocate them to a disused office block on a business park near Birmingham away from the Westminster circus.
I guess not.
When is the provision for recall powers over MPs going to be introduced? Time is running out...
As we know Britain suffers from an embarrassment of ministerial talent, and needs to shrink the pool they draw from to avoid being so good it makes other countries jealous.
I think the Labour lead will widen and narrow, and widen and narrow, repeat until fade this year.
By subsidising landlords, HMG increases demand for, and thus sale prices of, houses, driving them out of the reach of "ordinary" people who must therefore rent, and round we go again.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1313367
Fundamentally - should an MP represent the constituency in Westminster, or represent Westminster in the constituency? If the former, how does that equate with the pavement politics model of being 'a good local MP' which is what voters appear to appreciate?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/10537038/The-top-60-most-influential-over-50s-on-Twitter.html
Instead of forcing all companies to comply with European legislation, we suggest that Parliament should be able to draw up a list of the most onerous regulations that companies and organisations who don’t export to the EU should be allowed to opt out of."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/setting-out-the-british-option-a-business-proposal-for-eu-renegotiation/
I think you need to have a really out of whack result before things get changed - i.e., a situation where Labour gets an absolute majority on 30% of the vote (which is entirely possible). We'd then have the most left wing party, attracting less than in one-in-three votes, getting more than half the seats.
If UKIP is going to get themselves into the high teens, and the LibDems get 12% or so, then you could easily end up with UKIP with (basically) no seats against 30 odd for the Libs, and the Conservatives ahead in vote, but Labour with a majority.
The more I think about it, the Conservatives should have gone for proper multi-member STV, supported it fully and then had the advantage of being able to choose their coalition partner after the next election.
I wonder if a truly PR driven parliament would be a good thing or a bad thing for the quality of our governance?
Irrespective of where our exports go, they are crucially important to this country, given that we need to import more than half a million barrels of oil a day, plus natural gas and coal.
We also need to import food (and have done for 150 years).
And that's before we even get to other things like cars and electronics.
The small number of British firms who are exporters are crucially important to our way of life.
(I also doubt the 2% figure very much, I suspect it is enormously skewed by the fact that most companies are made up of group level, and operating companies, and by only measuring the operating business with the exports, you may miscount by as much as 5x).
PR^2 is a half-way house. Only first preferences count, there's no bias, there's still a winner's bonus with the possibility of a majority, and the constituency structure would essentially be a reversion to the pre-1885 (last vestiges remained until 1950) position. And voters would have a genuine choice of candidate. NPXMP could well still be NPMP under it.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/10/as-pr-becomes-centre-stage-what-about-this/
Outcomes of previous elections under PR^2 (usual caveats apply)
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/prsquaredb.jpg
EU Approvals Bill lets the EU to spend money on pro-EU propaganda even during a referendum on EU membership!! Why is our govt doing this?"
twitter.com/bernardjenkin/status/422785564778442752
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/europeanunionapprovals.html