On HS2 and connectivity: it's worth noting that whilst some UK cities have improved their mass transit offerings, compared to a lot of countries they're still pretty unimpressive. In a lot of cities there's still a huge overeliance on bus services, and those that do have trams/metro system often have a fairly limited network for the region they serve. If a lot of people want to get home fast, they need to get from A to B, and then to C. It's the "B to C" that's a big problem in a lot of cities.
Unfortunately due to a lack of vision by governments of all colours since WWII, we have a lot of catching up to do (read: money to spend) if we want to improve the transport networks in a lot of our cities.
Peter Adams (UK Independence Party (UKIP) John Black (Independent) Cara Hilton (Scottish Labour Party) Zara Kitson (Scottish Green Party) Susan Leslie (Scottish Liberal Democrats) James Reekie (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party) Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party (SNP)
No idea of the ins/outs/ups/downs of HS2, but my gut feeling is that it will drain more of everything down to London. I'd like to see better connections within and between the midland/northern cities. Getting from Stoke over to Sheffield is a pain in the arse by public transport, for example. Nice drive though.
Tim, rather than continue smearing the governors of WLFS, why don't you spend a couple of minutes reading the WLFS admissions criteria, which are freely available online and will at least allow you to peddle a better class of nonsense. You will find that the first priority for admissions are looked after/adopted children (the scoundrels!). Thereafter, unsurprisingly for a free school, the children of the founders are next through the gate. Up to 12 places are reserved for music scholars, which does leave room for some limited social engineering, I suppose. Then siblings come next. Thereafter its all done by proximity to the school, designed to ensure a mixture of very local kids and kids from up to three miles out, chosen by random allocation.
The proportion of kids on FSM is likely to be lower than the local average partly as a result the priority for founders of the school and siblings, possibly also the tendency for music scholars to come from wealthier backgrounds. Parental choice is likely to be a bigger factor. But to suggest that the governors are working hard to exclude poorer children when the first priority is looked after children and selections from the local catchment area are done by random allocation is grossly unfair. Your specific allegations about them engineering a socially exclusive school or selecting a large catchment area and then filtering applications are quite simply wrong; both on the raw data (whilst below the local average, the proportion of kids on FSM is still well above the national average and therefore the school can hardly be described as "exclusive") and on the facts of WLFS's admissions policy. Will you withdraw your remarks?
It is too much to ask that you congratulate the governors on creating an extraordinarily popular school, well ranked by OFSTED and much in demand in the local area, and acknowledge that the success of WLFS might, just might, tell us something about the failings of the state education system. But by all means don't let me stop you.
'Our *legendary* conference karaoke kicks off in just over an hour. It’s at LEGENDS and it’s DOWNSTAIRS. See some of you there #LLKaraoke' labourlist
The last - and only - time I ended up at Legends after a night out I had a bloke doing an impromptu pole dance in my face. Which would have been fine, if not for the plastic white trousers with a 'strategic' clear plastic panel. It was like looking though a butcher's shop window.
I'm going to take a wild guess here re Balls, OBR etc...
Cancelling or more likely 'postponing' HS2 will politically provide £50bn of magic money for a multitude of state handouts and bungs which will prioritise short term political wins over the longer term supposed payback on the project.
I'm a plan agnostic but it sounds an easy sell for Labour, hello mr.voter shall we spend a lot of money on a train somewhere which won't happen in yonks OR would you like me to give you a short term bung to help with the cost of living... 50 billion is a big number, and you deserve it don't you and I want you to have some, you know us we're Labour giving you someone else's money who shouldn't have so much? Vote Labour to get your fair share of this pot.
£50bn HS2 + £13 Bn Help To Buy (used for newbuild up to £300k, Osborne bits stripped out) + remove cap on councils borrowing to build.
A £100 Billion fund for massive housebuilding programme. And it'll save tens of billions in housing benefit.
Tim, after 13 years of masterly inaction on energy, infrastructure and housing what makes you think Labour will suddenly do an about turn on these issues? We're facing a massive energy crunch in a few years because of Labour's inaction for 13 years, in what way has the Labour party changed? That the heir to Brown could be in Number 11 and a sixth form debate society captain could become PM in 2015?
The Labour party is the same as it was in 2010, so much so that they are reselecting many of the same candidates and ex MPs that lost in the previous election, they are party stuck in the past and to their old ways.
I may not agree with what the current lot are doing but they will definitely be better than any 2015 Labour party.
The Tories are completely and utterly stupid to have to refuse to have the OBR review Labours proposals. Madness. They are clearly going to have to u turn on this. I bet you within a week of the first PMQs back.
The Tories are completely and utterly stupid to have to refuse to have the OBR review Labours proposals. Madness. They are clearly going to have to u turn on this. I bet you within a week of the first PMQs back.
Why ? labour are the party with the least credibility on the economy, why would the other parties want to give them any help to rebuild it ?
'Our *legendary* conference karaoke kicks off in just over an hour. It’s at LEGENDS and it’s DOWNSTAIRS. See some of you there #LLKaraoke' labourlist
The last - and only - time I ended up at Legends after a night out I had a bloke doing an impromptu pole dance in my face. Which would have been fine, if not for the plastic white trousers with a 'strategic' clear plastic panel. It was like looking though a butcher's shop window.
The last time I was in Legends I was wearing plastic white trousers....
No idea of the ins/outs/ups/downs of HS2, but my gut feeling is that it will drain more of everything down to London. I'd like to see better connections within and between the midland/northern cities. Getting from Stoke over to Sheffield is a pain in the arse by public transport, for example. Nice drive though.
Goodness knows they could do with greater capacity on the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds route as well. I've regularly been on trains where people are standing for upwards of 45 minutes even in the middle of the day.
Balls is now saying that the HS2 £50billion could be spent on "housing and transport"
Coupled with Help To Buy2 stripped of the mad remortgaging bits have the Tories inadvertently provided the country with a massive housebuilding budget for the next decade?
The issue isn't the budget, it' spending it. Labour will just fritter it away as ever.
£50bn HS2 + £13 Bn Help To Buy (used for newbuild up to £300k, Osborne bits stripped out) + remove cap on councils borrowing to build.
A £100 Billion fund for massive housebuilding programme. And it'll save tens of billions in housing benefit.
They didn't do it in 13 years in government they won't do it now. They'll threaten to spend it then find other things they like and the plans will sit of the shelf. Miliband and Balls don't have a happy record on infrastructure spending.
tim's political hero should be Harold MacMillan , toff , Scot , Tory , Etonian and builder ;
"With the Conservative victory in 1951 Macmillan became Minister of Housing under Churchill, who entrusted him with fulfilling the conference promise to build 300,000 houses per year. 'It is a gamble—it will make or mar your political career,' Churchill said, 'but every humble home will bless your name if you succeed.' Macmillan achieved the target a year ahead of schedule."
Well spotted, housebuilding and social mobility are inextricably linked.Thats why social mobility began to recede in 1979. Create a housing and new towns ministry, give it a huge budget and put another public schoolboy Scot Alistair Darling in charge of it.
UK social mobility died with the destruction of the Grammar Schools. Labour doesn't want social mobility , it's dependent on a manipulated lumpen under class.
It doesn't need cancelling you strip out th mad bits
So it applies to new build only, and reduce the limit to £300k,maybe keep it out of London, but that might be unnecessary with those conditions,there's nothing wrong with a scheme like that to help the private sector builders
I don't think you understand the Help to Buy Guarantee Scheme, tim.
It is not designed to directly stimulate new build housing.
An earlier scheme did that and, partly as a result, new housebuilding is currently operating at the same proportion to overall demand as it did before the financial crash. Private sector construction firms currently have the resources (land banks, finances, output capacity), the will and the capabilities to increase output to meet any reasonably forseeable rise in demand. Current rate of dwelling construction completions is around 132,000 per annum.
A fifty percent increase in output would reach the sector's historical annual peak and will happen naturally if demand recovers to a matching level. There is no need for further specific government stimulus.
So why the guarantee scheme? The reason is that the UK banks are unable to lend more than 75% of a property's value without increasing bank capital to meet regulatory requirements to cover the associated increase in lending risk.
The new capital cover regulations are necessary to prevent banks being "too big to fail" and to make another taxpayer bailout less likely in the future.
Banks have two means of raising their capital. Making profits and retaining them as reserves rather than distributing to shareholders, or, raising funds from the financial markets. Market funds generally involve issuing new shares (not always, Charles, I know) which reduce the share of profits to existing shareholders. As a result share prices fall.
About 35% of all new mortgage lending is carried out by the intervened banks (LLoyds, RBoS), so increased capital from a rights issue (where existing shareholders are given first rights on the new shares so that they can mitigate dilution of their earnings) would have to come in large part from the taxpayer. The last thing anyone wants now is for the taxpayer to inject more capital into the banks and for the state's existing shareholdings to fall in value. So the obvious answer is to give the intervened bank groups time to clean up their balance sheets and accumulate sufficient profits as reserves to meet the new capital adequacy regulations and reenable a full range of mortgage lending products.
So the Help to Buy guarantee scheme is a temporary measure to allow banks to offer loans of above 75% of property value without having to raise capital. Instead the bank pays the government a premium to cover the additional risk which would otherwise be covered by increased capital.
Now you may say this is very bank-centric. But this would miss the point.
If banks are not able to offer greater than 75% LTV loans, then mortgages would become restricted to only those who have 25% of the property's value to post as a deposit. This effectively shuts out almost all first time buyers and a substantial proportion of first time (and other) movers. As a result housing sales volumes fall and the pent up tensions in the market would eventually force a corrective and substantial fall in house prices. This, at best, would be similar to the 10% sudden falls in values suffered in, say, Holland, but could, at worst, match the catastrophic levels of fall suffered by Spain and Ireland.
If property prices fell by 10% or more this would immediately effect the UK banks balance sheets as the assets they are holding to secure existing mortgage loans would need to be marked down in value prompting a need to bolster capital to cover the increased risk. So back we come in a vicious circle. Catastrophic falls in house prices would break the banks and force a second taxpayer bailout.
To conclude, the Help to Buy guarantee scheme is purely a temporary measure to avoid catastrophic falls in house prices and the consequential impact on bank stability. It enables the housing market to remain liquid. It avoids first time buyers and first movers from being shut out of the market. It lessens the probabilities of catastrophic market shocks. The scheme will eventually self-liquidate as property prices rise above the amount guaranteed and banks accumulate sufficient capital through profit retention.
The Tories are completely and utterly stupid to have to refuse to have the OBR review Labours proposals. Madness. They are clearly going to have to u turn on this. I bet you within a week of the first PMQs back.
Out of all the policies we have heard from labour so far,how many of them will have u-turns or will be Quietly dumped ?
'Our *legendary* conference karaoke kicks off in just over an hour. It’s at LEGENDS and it’s DOWNSTAIRS. See some of you there #LLKaraoke' labourlist
The last - and only - time I ended up at Legends after a night out I had a bloke doing an impromptu pole dance in my face. Which would have been fine, if not for the plastic white trousers with a 'strategic' clear plastic panel. It was like looking though a butcher's shop window.
The last time I was in Legends I was wearing plastic white trousers....
Well if it was three-ish summers ago maybe next time you could borrow Dave's towel
'Our *legendary* conference karaoke kicks off in just over an hour. It’s at LEGENDS and it’s DOWNSTAIRS. See some of you there #LLKaraoke' labourlist
The last - and only - time I ended up at Legends after a night out I had a bloke doing an impromptu pole dance in my face. Which would have been fine, if not for the plastic white trousers with a 'strategic' clear plastic panel. It was like looking though a butcher's shop window.
The last time I was in Legends I was wearing plastic white trousers....
Can someone work out the odds of a random school lottery in an area with 45% of children on free school meals ending up with less than 25% getting through the doors?
Maybe Rod could run some simulations.
And Flockers, how did Toby's school become the most socially exclusive non religious state school in London as soon as it opened? Are you telling me it's a statistical freak, if so you'd expect a few other state schools in London to have been the subject of the same statistical freakery.
If FSM is going to be extended to all I'm not sure how they'll work out the pupil premium stats. Haven't looked into the detail, mind.
'It is too much to ask that you congratulate the governors on creating an extraordinarily popular school, well ranked by OFSTED and much in demand in the local area, and acknowledge that the success of WLFS might, just might, tell us something about the failings of the state education system. But by all means don't let me stop you.'
First it was the budget,then it was Latin was being taught in a state school,then it was the lack of an Ofsted report (the theory being that the standard was poor),then the excellent Ofsted report came out, so now the only thing left is that only 25% of kids are on FSM's and not 45% which is the average for the area. The fact that the school is only in its third year of recruitment & the ratio of FSM's could change is irrelevant.
Whatever the school does, achieves or moves to 45% FSM's ,Tim's hatred of Toby Young & the concept of a school free from local authority control will always prevail. .
The Tories are completely and utterly stupid to have to refuse to have the OBR review Labours proposals. Madness. They are clearly going to have to u turn on this. I bet you within a week of the first PMQs back.
I didn't realise they'd refused it - a bizarre response if true. Why have they declined?
Every single one of our policies is affordable and will save the country money in the long run. And what's more David Cameron and George Osborne know this. If they weren't affordable then he would let the OBR have a look at our plans and let them point out whatever wasn't.
David Cameron knows our plans are costed and value for money. So much so he won't even let the organisation HE set up do the job HE tasked them with.
The Tories are completely and utterly stupid to have to refuse to have the OBR review Labours proposals. Madness. They are clearly going to have to u turn on this. I bet you within a week of the first PMQs back.
Not at all IOS.
Balls is not looking for the OBR to "review" a total spending plan. He is looking for third party endorsement for specific spending measures. He wants to shut out Treasury and Conservative Party criticism of his proposals.
The charter functions of the OBR are not to act as a referee or an adjudicator in a party political electioneering battle. The OBR was set up to provide forecasts based on published government budgets and spending reviews and to advise the public on whether they meet pre-determined long term fiscal policies and goals.
No opposition is ever in the same position as the government to prepare the level of detail that budgets and spending reviews require. These tasks absorb a very large part of the existing Treasury, Government Department and Civil Service resources.
So simply throwing an idea at Robert Chote and asking "what do you think?" is completely outside the charter scope and current capabilities of the OBR.
And even if this didn't apply, the OBR is already stretching its resources to meet its current functions and is still learning its business. It needs to be left to mature as a organisation into delivering more robust forecasts and commentary before it starts to embark on any extension of its brief.
If Balls wants an independent assessment he can buy it from a major accountancy/consulting group, or specialist think tank or even contract with a trans-national economic agency such as the OECD.
Because it would cost the tax payer money! Which is incredible as they are already using tax payer money to do treasury reports. Which of course aren't independent.
Cameron is going to have to back down. I really do not understand why he doesn't just throw in the towel on it now. On the other hand great politics from Labour. If they can nullify any over spending accusations they are home and dry.
'Holland Park School was opened in London, UK, in 1958. It became the flagship for comprehensive education, and in its heyday had over 2000 in the student body.A number of high-profile socialists sent their children to Holland Park School, adding to its reputation as a left wing institution. Tony and Caroline Benn notably sent all 4 of their children to Holland Park.'
Are you trying to claim that 3 years after it opened Holland Park Comp exactly reflected the ratio of the average FSM's for the area? Do yourself a favor & have at look on Wikipedia,HPC was the the socialists Who's Who..
I lived in the area for many years and it was full of Labour MP's,(not just Jenkins,Benn & Crosland) with homes in the catchment area enabling them to send their kids to the best Comp in the country and pretend to be good socialists.
Tim, you are massively out of your depth on this and you should just apologise and move on.
If you bothered to read the policy (go on, the relevant section is short) you would see that half of the non-prioritised places (after siblings in the order) are reserved for applicants closest to the school. Two-thirds of the remainder are reserved for pupils within one mile. The rest (ie a tiny minority) go to those within three miles. So it is very clearly focussed on local children. The latter two categories are chosen by ballot.
As I indicated in my original post, the "up to" 12 musical scholarships could have a distortive effect, although I would be very surprised if the governors ever thought "she plays like an angel, but her Mum's just too poor", so any distortive effect would likely be both minor and inadvertent. The priority afforded to children of founders and to siblings would also be likely to have a distortive effect, although again relatively minor. The priority ascribed to very local children might also have tipped the balance away from children in estates slightly further afield, but it's impossible to say without a detailed breakdown of the numbers. It is likely that the demographic makeup of the applicants was a big driver. What is clear is that you have no evidence whatsoever that the governors are filtering applicants to prejudice poor pupils or trying very hard to exclude poor pupils, both of which you have accused them of.
Your comment about OFSTED is fatuous. OFSTED collects data on a basis that adjusts for the demographics of each school and that measures "value add" alongside traditional attainment measures, so a school cannot simply manipulate its admissions criteria to bump up its grade. OFSTED inspections are rigorous and very data focused.
As for your comment that WLFS is the most socially exclusive non-religious state school in London; it's contradicted by the very list that started this debate, being behind the Camden School for Girls.
Holland Park School's admissions policy provides that, after looked after children, it reserves 60 spaces for pupils ranking in each of the four quartiles based on standardised testing. Distance comes into it only as a tiebreaker. It's a very different policy designed to create an intake that closely reflects the local demographic, so it's no surprise that it has a high proportion of pupils on FSMs. It's also a larger school and much less over-subscribed, which eliminates any distortive effect a "local first" policy like that used by WLFS has. HPS should be commended for its commitment to the comprehensive principle, just as WLFS should be commended for responding to a different local need with resounding success. HPS should no more be criticised for not teaching latin (if indeed it does not) than WLFS should be criticised because its ostensibly fair admissions policy has not resulted in a social balance perfectly reflecting the local area.
Bear in mind the "local area" for the purposes of the FSM statistics are not synonymous with the catchment area of a heavily oversubscribed school thatadmits by distance.
On Saturday i reported that whilst the obvious suspects were Al Shabaab that some of the accents of the attackers suggested a wider scope than purely a 'we hate Kenya' strike.
Today investigations are looking into no less than four possible nationalities involved amongst the attackers. Whilst nothing is confirmed, if its proven it wont only verify early reports but also suggest this was not only a sectarian attack on non Muslims but also one deliberately against Western & Israeli targets.
Today's assault effort did go well, some attempted entry channels look to have been thwarted giving the terrorists within the complex yet more time. This is a classic Al Qaeda handbook attack where the damage measured is not just in the kill rate but also in the incident time dragging out.
As yet it is unclear if 3rd party special operations units have got involved directly. They are certainly kitted out in Nairobi not just to observe but to get involved. Nighttime is really the time to go in if they do so.
Tim, so tell me how you think they are rigging it. I have given you all the data you need. Either you think they have cleverly worked out that they will be sufficiently oversubscribed that the 50% reserved for very local pupils will guarantee all the nice posh kids get in but the local tower block remains tantalisingly out of reach, or you think they are rigging the ballot and bare faced lying. I don't think they are doing either. Do you?
I haven't even started on the sheer improbability of a school with a machiavellian desire to exclude poor pupils designing an admissions policy that, er, results in a quarter of the pupils receiving FSM.
I note you havent even responded on the OFSTED point.
You are seriously trying to compare FSM's between a school that was established over 50 years ago with a school that's 3 years old with the first intake of kids sitting their GCSE's in 2016!
The Tories are completely and utterly stupid to have to refuse to have the OBR review Labours proposals. Madness. They are clearly going to have to u turn on this. I bet you within a week of the first PMQs back.
Not at all IOS.
Balls is not looking for the OBR to "review" a total spending plan. He is looking for third party endorsement for specific spending measures. He wants to shut out Treasury and Conservative Party criticism of his proposals.
The charter functions of the OBR are not to act as a referee or an adjudicator in a party political electioneering battle. The OBR was set up to provide forecasts based on published government budgets and spending reviews and to advise the public on whether they meet pre-determined long term fiscal policies and goals.
No opposition is ever in the same position as the government to prepare the level of detail that budgets and spending reviews require. These tasks absorb a very large part of the existing Treasury, Government Department and Civil Service resources.
So simply throwing an idea at Robert Chote and asking "what do you think?" is completely outside the charter scope and current capabilities of the OBR.
And even if this didn't apply, the OBR is already stretching its resources to meet its current functions and is still learning its business. It needs to be left to mature as a organisation into delivering more robust forecasts and commentary before it starts to embark on any extension of its brief.
If Balls wants an independent assessment he can buy it from a major accountancy/consulting group, or specialist think tank or even contract with a trans-national economic agency such as the OECD.
A characteristically long winded and dull way of saying: "we're frit because the plans might check out." Dreadful positioning by the Tories.
Comments
Irony meters the world over explode.
LOL
Unfortunately due to a lack of vision by governments of all colours since WWII, we have a lot of catching up to do (read: money to spend) if we want to improve the transport networks in a lot of our cities.
Peter Adams (UK Independence Party (UKIP)
John Black (Independent)
Cara Hilton (Scottish Labour Party)
Zara Kitson (Scottish Green Party)
Susan Leslie (Scottish Liberal Democrats)
James Reekie (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party (SNP)
What's with the biro sketch of the bloke sniffing his armpit?
steve richards@steverichards1412m
X. Sq SNCC Ç f vvf v cv xC bhuuhuuhuhxh buy,.).,??..?,!!..;.
In the 1990 election they would both have won seats in the Bundestag because for that particular election 5% in either area was enough to qualify.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGhKQzRRMEwzNUdqQjlyUjVWcHlNTEE#gid=0
The proportion of kids on FSM is likely to be lower than the local average partly as a result the priority for founders of the school and siblings, possibly also the tendency for music scholars to come from wealthier backgrounds. Parental choice is likely to be a bigger factor. But to suggest that the governors are working hard to exclude poorer children when the first priority is looked after children and selections from the local catchment area are done by random allocation is grossly unfair. Your specific allegations about them engineering a socially exclusive school or selecting a large catchment area and then filtering applications are quite simply wrong; both on the raw data (whilst below the local average, the proportion of kids on FSM is still well above the national average and therefore the school can hardly be described as "exclusive") and on the facts of WLFS's admissions policy. Will you withdraw your remarks?
It is too much to ask that you congratulate the governors on creating an extraordinarily popular school, well ranked by OFSTED and much in demand in the local area, and acknowledge that the success of WLFS might, just might, tell us something about the failings of the state education system. But by all means don't let me stop you.
The last - and only - time I ended up at Legends after a night out I had a bloke doing an impromptu pole dance in my face. Which would have been fine, if not for the plastic white trousers with a 'strategic' clear plastic panel. It was like looking though a butcher's shop window.
Cancelling or more likely 'postponing' HS2 will politically provide £50bn of magic money for a multitude of state handouts and bungs which will prioritise short term political wins over the longer term supposed payback on the project.
I'm a plan agnostic but it sounds an easy sell for Labour, hello mr.voter shall we spend a lot of money on a train somewhere which won't happen in yonks OR would you like me to give you a short term bung to help with the cost of living... 50 billion is a big number, and you deserve it don't you and I want you to have some, you know us we're Labour giving you someone else's money who shouldn't have so much? Vote Labour to get your fair share of this pot.
Random madness end.
The Labour party is the same as it was in 2010, so much so that they are reselecting many of the same candidates and ex MPs that lost in the previous election, they are party stuck in the past and to their old ways.
I may not agree with what the current lot are doing but they will definitely be better than any 2015 Labour party.
Labour doesn't want social mobility , it's dependent on a manipulated lumpen under class.
I doubt you'd get past the bouncers in your shoes...
Surely 'Titus Andronicus' is the most apt comparison.
Help to Buy
It doesn't need cancelling you strip out th mad bits
So it applies to new build only, and reduce the limit to £300k,maybe keep it out of London, but that might be unnecessary with those conditions,there's nothing wrong with a scheme like that to help the private sector builders
I don't think you understand the Help to Buy Guarantee Scheme, tim.
It is not designed to directly stimulate new build housing.
An earlier scheme did that and, partly as a result, new housebuilding is currently operating at the same proportion to overall demand as it did before the financial crash. Private sector construction firms currently have the resources (land banks, finances, output capacity), the will and the capabilities to increase output to meet any reasonably forseeable rise in demand. Current rate of dwelling construction completions is around 132,000 per annum.
A fifty percent increase in output would reach the sector's historical annual peak and will happen naturally if demand recovers to a matching level. There is no need for further specific government stimulus.
So why the guarantee scheme? The reason is that the UK banks are unable to lend more than 75% of a property's value without increasing bank capital to meet regulatory requirements to cover the associated increase in lending risk.
The new capital cover regulations are necessary to prevent banks being "too big to fail" and to make another taxpayer bailout less likely in the future.
[to be continued...]
Help to Buy
[continued ...]
Banks have two means of raising their capital. Making profits and retaining them as reserves rather than distributing to shareholders, or, raising funds from the financial markets. Market funds generally involve issuing new shares (not always, Charles, I know) which reduce the share of profits to existing shareholders. As a result share prices fall.
About 35% of all new mortgage lending is carried out by the intervened banks (LLoyds, RBoS), so increased capital from a rights issue (where existing shareholders are given first rights on the new shares so that they can mitigate dilution of their earnings) would have to come in large part from the taxpayer. The last thing anyone wants now is for the taxpayer to inject more capital into the banks and for the state's existing shareholdings to fall in value. So the obvious answer is to give the intervened bank groups time to clean up their balance sheets and accumulate sufficient profits as reserves to meet the new capital adequacy regulations and reenable a full range of mortgage lending products.
So the Help to Buy guarantee scheme is a temporary measure to allow banks to offer loans of above 75% of property value without having to raise capital. Instead the bank pays the government a premium to cover the additional risk which would otherwise be covered by increased capital.
Now you may say this is very bank-centric. But this would miss the point.
If banks are not able to offer greater than 75% LTV loans, then mortgages would become restricted to only those who have 25% of the property's value to post as a deposit. This effectively shuts out almost all first time buyers and a substantial proportion of first time (and other) movers. As a result housing sales volumes fall and the pent up tensions in the market would eventually force a corrective and substantial fall in house prices. This, at best, would be similar to the 10% sudden falls in values suffered in, say, Holland, but could, at worst, match the catastrophic levels of fall suffered by Spain and Ireland.
[to be continued ...]
Help to Buy
[...continued]
Now back to the supply side, the banks.
If property prices fell by 10% or more this would immediately effect the UK banks balance sheets as the assets they are holding to secure existing mortgage loans would need to be marked down in value prompting a need to bolster capital to cover the increased risk. So back we come in a vicious circle. Catastrophic falls in house prices would break the banks and force a second taxpayer bailout.
To conclude, the Help to Buy guarantee scheme is purely a temporary measure to avoid catastrophic falls in house prices and the consequential impact on bank stability. It enables the housing market to remain liquid. It avoids first time buyers and first movers from being shut out of the market. It lessens the probabilities of catastrophic market shocks. The scheme will eventually self-liquidate as property prices rise above the amount guaranteed and banks accumulate sufficient capital through profit retention.
'It is too much to ask that you congratulate the governors on creating an extraordinarily popular school, well ranked by OFSTED and much in demand in the local area, and acknowledge that the success of WLFS might, just might, tell us something about the failings of the state education system. But by all means don't let me stop you.'
First it was the budget,then it was Latin was being taught in a state school,then it was the lack of an Ofsted report (the theory being that the standard was poor),then the excellent Ofsted report came out, so now the only thing left is that only 25% of kids are on FSM's and not 45% which is the average for the area.
The fact that the school is only in its third year of recruitment & the ratio of FSM's could change is irrelevant.
Whatever the school does, achieves or moves to 45% FSM's ,Tim's hatred of Toby Young & the concept of a school free from local authority control will always prevail. .
Are you really that thick? Ok. Here is why. Tyke
Every single one of our policies is affordable and will save the country money in the long run. And what's more David Cameron and George Osborne know this. If they weren't affordable then he would let the OBR have a look at our plans and let them point out whatever wasn't.
David Cameron knows our plans are costed and value for money. So much so he won't even let the organisation HE set up do the job HE tasked them with.
Balls is not looking for the OBR to "review" a total spending plan. He is looking for third party endorsement for specific spending measures. He wants to shut out Treasury and Conservative Party criticism of his proposals.
The charter functions of the OBR are not to act as a referee or an adjudicator in a party political electioneering battle. The OBR was set up to provide forecasts based on published government budgets and spending reviews and to advise the public on whether they meet pre-determined long term fiscal policies and goals.
No opposition is ever in the same position as the government to prepare the level of detail that budgets and spending reviews require. These tasks absorb a very large part of the existing Treasury, Government Department and Civil Service resources.
So simply throwing an idea at Robert Chote and asking "what do you think?" is completely outside the charter scope and current capabilities of the OBR.
And even if this didn't apply, the OBR is already stretching its resources to meet its current functions and is still learning its business. It needs to be left to mature as a organisation into delivering more robust forecasts and commentary before it starts to embark on any extension of its brief.
If Balls wants an independent assessment he can buy it from a major accountancy/consulting group, or specialist think tank or even contract with a trans-national economic agency such as the OECD.
Because it would cost the tax payer money! Which is incredible as they are already using tax payer money to do treasury reports. Which of course aren't independent.
Cameron is going to have to back down. I really do not understand why he doesn't just throw in the towel on it now. On the other hand great politics from Labour. If they can nullify any over spending accusations they are home and dry.
Miliband plans increase in corporation tax http://on.ft.com/1aiQ1tt
Disappointing. After the illegal apprentice scheme, and the cancelled jabtax, I was hoping for Quiet Bat People as the big speech announcement
'Holland Park School was opened in London, UK, in 1958. It became the flagship for comprehensive education, and in its heyday had over 2000 in the student body.A number of high-profile socialists sent their children to Holland Park School, adding to its reputation as a left wing institution. Tony and Caroline Benn notably sent all 4 of their children to Holland Park.'
Are you trying to claim that 3 years after it opened Holland Park Comp exactly reflected the ratio of the average FSM's for the area?
Do yourself a favor & have at look on Wikipedia,HPC was the the socialists Who's Who..
I lived in the area for many years and it was full of Labour MP's,(not just Jenkins,Benn & Crosland) with homes in the catchment area enabling them to send their kids to the best Comp in the country and pretend to be good socialists.
If you bothered to read the policy (go on, the relevant section is short) you would see that half of the non-prioritised places (after siblings in the order) are reserved for applicants closest to the school. Two-thirds of the remainder are reserved for pupils within one mile. The rest (ie a tiny minority) go to those within three miles. So it is very clearly focussed on local children. The latter two categories are chosen by ballot.
As I indicated in my original post, the "up to" 12 musical scholarships could have a distortive effect, although I would be very surprised if the governors ever thought "she plays like an angel, but her Mum's just too poor", so any distortive effect would likely be both minor and inadvertent. The priority afforded to children of founders and to siblings would also be likely to have a distortive effect, although again relatively minor. The priority ascribed to very local children might also have tipped the balance away from children in estates slightly further afield, but it's impossible to say without a detailed breakdown of the numbers. It is likely that the demographic makeup of the applicants was a big driver. What is clear is that you have no evidence whatsoever that the governors are filtering applicants to prejudice poor pupils or trying very hard to exclude poor pupils, both of which you have accused them of.
Your comment about OFSTED is fatuous. OFSTED collects data on a basis that adjusts for the demographics of each school and that measures "value add" alongside traditional attainment measures, so a school cannot simply manipulate its admissions criteria to bump up its grade. OFSTED inspections are rigorous and very data focused.
As for your comment that WLFS is the most socially exclusive non-religious state school in London; it's contradicted by the very list that started this debate, being behind the Camden School for Girls.
Back of the class.
Bear in mind the "local area" for the purposes of the FSM statistics are not synonymous with the catchment area of a heavily oversubscribed school thatadmits by distance.
On Saturday i reported that whilst the obvious suspects were Al Shabaab that some of the accents of the attackers suggested a wider scope than purely a 'we hate Kenya' strike.
Today investigations are looking into no less than four possible nationalities involved amongst the attackers. Whilst nothing is confirmed, if its proven it wont only verify early reports but also suggest this was not only a sectarian attack on non Muslims but also one deliberately against Western & Israeli targets.
Today's assault effort did go well, some attempted entry channels look to have been thwarted giving the terrorists within the complex yet more time. This is a classic Al Qaeda handbook attack where the damage measured is not just in the kill rate but also in the incident time dragging out.
As yet it is unclear if 3rd party special operations units have got involved directly. They are certainly kitted out in Nairobi not just to observe but to get involved. Nighttime is really the time to go in if they do so.
I haven't even started on the sheer improbability of a school with a machiavellian desire to exclude poor pupils designing an admissions policy that, er, results in a quarter of the pupils receiving FSM.
I note you havent even responded on the OFSTED point.
You are seriously trying to compare FSM's between a school that was established over 50 years ago with a school that's 3 years old with the first intake of kids sitting their GCSE's in 2016!
When your in a hole etc.
'I note you havent even responded on the OFSTED point.'
Tim's response:
'I'm designing a coin that is fair but produces 75% tails, care to come and bet with me, it's straight, honest.'
Translation = Nothing to say..