politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Andy Murray’s SPOTY victory could help the IndyRef NO campa

Huzzah for Murray

I doubt it. But it was certainly a British event. No-one from England in the top 3; a Kiwi coach of the year; a Wales-dominated Lions as team of the year; a special award for Sir Lex.

If there is an Indy referendum angle, it's more that there can be no complaints of pro-English bias. That said, in an independent Scotland a Scot will always be SPOTY.

Tennis stars will be competing under the Saltire at the Glagow games one month before the vote.

Looks like Salmond's Saltire Stunt won him few friends:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10519073/Alex-Salmond-asked-Prince-Charles-for-flight-to-Mandela-funeral.html

Jonathan said:

Tennis stars will be competing under the Saltire at the Glagow games one month before the vote.

Is tennis in the Commonwealth Games? More generally, does anyone really care about them?

In any case, one of the main reasons that the Commonwealth exists is because the Scots enthusiastically helped to create, build and sustain the British Empire.

Good morning, everyone.

Didn't watch it, as it clashed with Homeland, but I'm glad Murray won. 55% is a crushing margin of victory too.

Probably marginally helps No, not so much as a positive impact as the avoidance of a negative one had he lost.

For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't performed a Vulcan mind meld with Morris Dancer.

In 1997 I used to share a house with a zealous professional organiser who admitted that he read EVERY item of news - gossip columns, weather forecasts, anything - in terms of "what will this do to voting intentions?" I know the feeling but think it should be resisted. My guess is that the SPOTY vote in 2013 will have no effect at all by the time of the referendum.

The organiser, incidentally, won £100,000 in a poker tournament and lost all interest in politics to take up poker professionally. Temperamentally, I think, he could only really have one big thing in his life - I like to think that having a few other interests makes for more durable political people in the end...

I think it's a shame archery isn't in the Commonwealth Games anymore. Excepting the oldest of ancient sports (discus, javelin, etc) archery would seem one of the most obvious to be included.

Mind you, I'd like to see jousting as an Olympic/Commonwealth sport too. I think that'd be tremendous fun.

Nice to see that lovely-cuddly Labour are bringing in an anti-slavery bill:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25389760

Oh hang on, it's the evil baby-eating Tories ...

(Although Frank Field needs a great deal of credit as well)

JosiasJessop said:

Nice to see that [politicians] are bringing in an anti-slavery bill

Blimey, is slavery still legal in the UK?

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nice to see that [politicians] are bringing in an anti-slavery bill

Blimey, is slavery still legal in the UK?

It all depends on how you define slavery ...

What are the specific things that are currently legal that this bill would ban?

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nice to see that [politicians] are bringing in an anti-slavery bill

Blimey, is slavery still legal in the UK?

It all depends on how you define slavery ...

What are the specific things that are currently legal that this bill would ban?

May I suggest you RTFA?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25389760

The Modern Slavery Bill aims to consolidate the offences used to prosecute those who enslave others into a single act.

It provides for automatic life sentences for offenders with prior convictions for very serious sexual or violent offences.

Alongside the draft legislation, a review into modern slavery commissioned by the Home Office and carried out by Labour MP Frank Field will also be published.

Mr Field estimates that there are 10,000 victims of slavery in the UK.

But Mrs May told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The honest position is that we don't know whether that is the right figure, or whether there are fewer or indeed more victims in the UK.

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nice to see that [politicians] are bringing in an anti-slavery bill

Blimey, is slavery still legal in the UK?

It all depends on how you define slavery ...

What are the specific things that are currently legal that this bill would ban?

May I suggest you RTFA?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25389760

The Modern Slavery Bill aims to consolidate the offences used to prosecute those who enslave others into a single act.

It provides for automatic life sentences for offenders with prior convictions for very serious sexual or violent offences.

Alongside the draft legislation, a review into modern slavery commissioned by the Home Office and carried out by Labour MP Frank Field will also be published.

Mr Field estimates that there are 10,000 victims of slavery in the UK.

But Mrs May told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The honest position is that we don't know whether that is the right figure, or whether there are fewer or indeed more victims in the UK.

I saw that but I didn't really get it. Is it more of a deterrent to be prosecuted under one single law instead of several different laws?

Automatic life sentences are meaningful and make for excellent politics, but deeply shitty government. Courts should have some discretion based on hearing what actually happened.

Nick Palmer at 8.29. Was your ex-flat mate Des Wilson by any chance? He quit politics for poker.

TGOHF said:

Some movement in the Betfair most seats market over the weekend and not all down to my small wagers.

Lab 1.81-1.82
Con 2.26 -2.28

You can get better odds, evens, on LAB by taking a wager out with Dan Hodges

antifrank said:

Here's a question: should we necessarily be outlawing some of the more extreme BDSM and related lifestyles? Some Goreans take their lifestyle very seriously indeed. Others might well regard aspects of it as slavery.

No, but from the BBC write-up it's not clear that they've done anything at all - it looks like they're going to rename some existing legislation, then send out a press release about it. Also they're going to require minimum life sentences in a small subset of cases where you'd normally get a life sentence anyhow, apart from in some weird obscure situation that nobody's thought of yet.

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nice to see that [politicians] are bringing in an anti-slavery bill

Blimey, is slavery still legal in the UK?

It all depends on how you define slavery ...

What are the specific things that are currently legal that this bill would ban?

May I suggest you RTFA?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25389760

The Modern Slavery Bill aims to consolidate the offences used to prosecute those who enslave others into a single act.

It provides for automatic life sentences for offenders with prior convictions for very serious sexual or violent offences.

Alongside the draft legislation, a review into modern slavery commissioned by the Home Office and carried out by Labour MP Frank Field will also be published.

Mr Field estimates that there are 10,000 victims of slavery in the UK.

But Mrs May told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The honest position is that we don't know whether that is the right figure, or whether there are fewer or indeed more victims in the UK.

I saw that but I didn't really get it. Is it more of a deterrent to be prosecuted under one single law instead of several different laws?

Automatic life sentences are meaningful and make for excellent politics, but deeply shitty government. Courts should have some discretion based on hearing what actually happened.

I will leave it to one of the lawyers (or info after the announcement is made) to say how it has changed. But it seems to me (IANAL) that the definition of slavery is being widened, as well as encapsulating the laws into one.

I understand your concern wrt automatic life sentences.

SandraM said:

Nick Palmer at 8.29. Was your ex-flat mate Des Wilson by any chance? He quit politics for poker.

No, Ian Oldershaw. I heard that he didn't repeat his tournament triumph and after a year or two went back to regular work, but not in politics. Really nice guy.

Quick Economics Update

There's economic data (principally Markit 'survey' data) out on both China and the Eurozone today. And, the big story has to be that the divergence of the French and Germany economies continues apace. The manufacturing Markit PMI data from Germany improved from 52.7 to 54.2, and remained at an elevated level (54.0) for service. In France, on the other hand, we saw both indicators worsen, and remain well below the 50 level that indicates stability. Manufacturing dropped from 48.4 to 47.1, while services dropped from 48.0 to 47.4. There was better news for the rest of the Eurozone, as the Markit Eurozone composite (which includes Italy, Spain, etc. etc.) improved in to 52.1, indicating that (outside France) the Eurozone is recovering, albeit at a tepid pace.

Also out today was the China Markit PMI data, which was surprisingly weak, coming in at 50.5 (i.e. indicating that the Chinese economy is growing, but slowly). Now, while I would caution that the December PMI reflects the fact that Chinese factories tend to slow down post the pre-Christmas, it was nevertheless quite a lot worse than people expected.

Other random data out this morning, Denmark's wholesale price index remains resolutely negative, increasing the risk of recession there. The Eurozone trade balance remains (perhaps too) healthy, showing a €14.5bn surplus in November, with Italy and the peripery making a positive contribution for a change.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Didn't watch it, as it clashed with Homeland, but I'm glad Murray won. 55% is a crushing margin of victory too.

Probably marginally helps No, not so much as a positive impact as the avoidance of a negative one had he lost.

MD, what bollocks, pray tell how winning a poxy BBC title helps NO.

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Didn't watch it, as it clashed with Homeland, but I'm glad Murray won. 55% is a crushing margin of victory too.

Probably marginally helps No, not so much as a positive impact as the avoidance of a negative one had he lost.

MD, what bollocks, pray tell how winning a poxy BBC title helps NO.

Because it winds the YES camp up no end ?!?

@NickPalmer

Come along young Nicholas, get your brain engaged on the quiz - no more of the drink/poker fuelled memories .... well perhaps later !!

JonathanD said:

rcs1000 said:

Quick Economics Update

There's economic data (principally Markit 'survey' data) out on both China and the Eurozone today. And, the big story has to be that the divergence of the French and Germany economies continues apace. The manufacturing Markit PMI data from Germany improved from 52.7 to 54.2, and remained at an elevated level (54.0) for service. In France, on the other hand, we saw both indicators worsen, and remain well below the 50 level that indicates stability. Manufacturing dropped from 48.4 to 47.1, while services dropped from 48.0 to 47.4. There was better news for the rest of the Eurozone, as the Markit Eurozone composite (which includes Italy, Spain, etc. etc.) improved in to 52.1, indicating that (outside France) the Eurozone is recovering, albeit at a tepid pace.

Also out today was the China Markit PMI data, which was surprisingly weak, coming in at 50.5 (i.e. indicating that the Chinese economy is growing, but slowly). Now, while I would caution that the December PMI reflects the fact that Chinese factories tend to slow down post the pre-Christmas, it was nevertheless quite a lot worse than people expected.

Other random data out this morning, Denmark's wholesale price index remains resolutely negative, increasing the risk of recession there. The Eurozone trade balance remains (perhaps too) healthy, showing a €14.5bn surplus in November, with Italy and the peripery making a positive contribution for a change.

France really is in a bit of trouble. Fortunately for them, the state sector is so large that even the poor performance of the private sector will still allow GDP growth to continue...

56%.

That's the proportion of French GDP accounted for by the state. Over the last five years, we have seen the state retreat in all the Eurozone periphery countries, and we're even seeing it now in the UK and the US (and we never had the same problems). France is the standout - it (whatever AE-P says) has not practised the economics of austerity. It must reform, or face crisis. (And that crisis has the potential to pull the Eurozone apart.)

The only good news for France is that the countries around it are doing somewhat better, and therefore there should not be so much of a drag from the Spanish, etc. being in recession.

Morning all

Not many comments on the cricket but some rearguard defiance from England today whcih shows a degree of hope. Losing Bell before stumps the final blow I suspect.

On the way to dropping off the car at the garage, heard an interview with Theresa May on LBC. Now, Nick Ferrari is about as sycophantic as it gets with any Conservative but even he was starting to get irritated with May's stonewalling on the anticipated numbers of Bulgarian and Romanian migrants post-January.

I'm not quite sure if May is trying to sound tough because that's what Tory Home Secretaries are supposed to do but I get the sense she's (to use an awful metaphor) talking with one hand tied behind her back - there's what she says and what she'd like to say.

I also wonder if, in the event of an election defeat, she really would stand herself for the leadership or ally behind Osborne (could she be Shadow Foreign Secreatry?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25390456

Mr Ratcliffe said Ineos recently agreed a deal for nuclear power in France at 45 euros (£37.94) per Mwh.

Interesting.

Pulpstar said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25390456

Mr Ratcliffe said Ineos recently agreed a deal for nuclear power in France at 45 euros (£37.94) per Mwh.

Interesting.

Although it's worth pointing out the French already have the nuclear reactors. No-one will build a nuclear plant today, unless guaranteed at least £80MW/h or so.

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

JonathanD said:

rcs1000 said:

Quick Economics Update

There's economic data (principally Markit 'survey' data) out on both China and the Eurozone today. And, the big story has to be that the divergence of the French and Germany economies continues apace. The manufacturing Markit PMI data from Germany improved from 52.7 to 54.2, and remained at an elevated level (54.0) for service. In France, on the other hand, we saw both indicators worsen, and remain well below the 50 level that indicates stability. Manufacturing dropped from 48.4 to 47.1, while services dropped from 48.0 to 47.4. There was better news for the rest of the Eurozone, as the Markit Eurozone composite (which includes Italy, Spain, etc. etc.) improved in to 52.1, indicating that (outside France) the Eurozone is recovering, albeit at a tepid pace.

Also out today was the China Markit PMI data, which was surprisingly weak, coming in at 50.5 (i.e. indicating that the Chinese economy is growing, but slowly). Now, while I would caution that the December PMI reflects the fact that Chinese factories tend to slow down post the pre-Christmas, it was nevertheless quite a lot worse than people expected.

Other random data out this morning, Denmark's wholesale price index remains resolutely negative, increasing the risk of recession there. The Eurozone trade balance remains (perhaps too) healthy, showing a €14.5bn surplus in November, with Italy and the peripery making a positive contribution for a change.

France really is in a bit of trouble. Fortunately for them, the state sector is so large that even the poor performance of the private sector will still allow GDP growth to continue...

56%.

That's the proportion of French GDP accounted for by the state. Over the last five years, we have seen the state retreat in all the Eurozone periphery countries, and we're even seeing it now in the UK and the US (and we never had the same problems). France is the standout - it (whatever AE-P says) has not practised the economics of austerity. It must reform, or face crisis. (And that crisis has the potential to pull the Eurozone apart.)

The only good news for France is that the countries around it are doing somewhat better, and therefore there should not be so much of a drag from the Spanish, etc. being in recession.

The French people have been taught for decades that the French economic model is the best in the world. They have a long way to go before they accept this is not the case. The rise of the FN is all about a refusal to accept reality and blaming others for what France has done to itself. Hollande promised what could not be achieved; Sarkozy promised change, but delivered none. That is one buggered country. And it is a huge shame because where the French are good in the private sector they are very, very good - as a whole much more imaginative, willing to invest in innovation etc, than we are. But they have a Napoleonic addiction to the state as a source of all goodness. Even I can see that this is a mistake!

Yes.

I divide political parties into two groups:

Those who believe in the magic money tree, and
Those who do not

In France, almost everyone is a believer (Holland and the FN are fully paid up believers). In the UK, historically the Conservative Party were the only sceptics. Recently, the LibDems have become reluctant converts.

Can the French discover the truth in time?

I see that, fresh from his triumph in wrecking investment in our energy infrastructure, Ed 'François' Miliband is trying to repeat the trick on housebuilding.

In his speech on Monday, Mr Miliband will say that profits of the country's four biggest housing developers - Barratt, Berkeley, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey - are "going through the roof".

"They have soared 557% since this government took office - even though homes have been built at their slowest rate witnessed in peacetime for almost a century.

So, Ed's method for getting more houses built is to attack those companies which are actually having the temerity to build and sell houses as fast at they possibly can, as they recover from a disastrous collapse in the market which almost bankrupted some of them and led to major cash calls on shareholders.

It's hard to know whether he really is so stupid and ignorant as not to understand risk and reward in investment, or whether he is so cynical and irresponsible that he doesn't care. I fear it's the former (the worse of the two), but, either way, this is further proof, if any were needed, that if he ends up in No 10, Ed Miliband will be most disastrous Prime Minister for many decades.

BTW it appears that I was just slightly pessimistic last night in forecasting that the Ashes would be officially lost as I slept. The greed of the Australians for runs and their desire to really rub England's face in it means the sorry story trips into another day.

Jack W. Paddington bear was befriended by the Brown family. It's not Gordon Brown is it? Is that too obvious?

To make Richard Nabavi's point about the financial illiteracy of Ed Miliband on housebuilders, here are the last five years' profits and losses of those companies:

http://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/barratt/en/investor/performance/five
http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/8/g/Annual-Report-2013.pdf#page=117
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=PSN
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=TW.

Three out of four of these have made more losses than profits in the last five years.

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

BTW it appears that I was just slightly pessimistic last night in forecasting that the Ashes would be officially lost as I slept. The greed of the Australians for runs and their desire to really rub England's face in it means the sorry story trips into another day.

Stokes has done very well. Hopefully, he'll get a good run in the side now. He has a lot to learn - especially with his bowling - but there is real promise.

He still looks a little high at 6 to me but a good innings in difficult circumstances.

As a bowler I am not so sure but so long as he is a 5th bowler it is an added extra.

I would drop Prior (who will now score a century tomorrow), bring in Bairstow, bat him at 6 and put Stokes in at 7.

I think England need to ring the changes for the dead rubbers. This team looks psycologically as well as physically beat.

SandraM said:

Jack W. Paddington bear was befriended by the Brown family. It's not Gordon Brown is it? Is that too obvious?

No but Paddington is a good clue.

SouthamObserver said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

AVB gone.

Before Xmas as SO predicted ages ago.

Pity but almost inevitable if you stand back - had a go at the fans, didn't play the 'spurs way' BUT had a great win % compared to virtually all our other managers... really not sure we shouldn't have given him until after the FA Cup game at Arsenal. Seen what we'd done by then.

It's the Spurs way. A real shame, but there you go. We have West Ham on Wednesday in the League Cup quarters. That should be fun now.

Seems harsh. He was still doing better than David Moyes. I got my hopes up when I read he was taking full responsibility recently but it turns out it was like a politician taking responsibility: there was no consequence.

How Ferguson won the league with this lot last year...one of his greatest achievements as a manager.

antifrank said:

To make Richard Nabavi's point about the financial illiteracy of Ed Miliband on housebuilders, here are the last five years' profits and losses of those companies:

http://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/barratt/en/investor/performance/five
http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/8/g/Annual-Report-2013.pdf#page=117
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=PSN
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=TW.

Three out of four of these have made more losses than profits in the last five years.

Profit and loss at big businesses (which our big house builders are) over a five year period are not necessarily indicators of anything much. Losses are sometimes rather nice if they help you from a tax perspective' They may also indicate investments - such as land purchases in the case of builders - that will reap major gains further down the line. If you buy a lot of land when the market is flat, then start building when it picks up, you will show losses for a while. But then you will show profits. The issue is whether what works for house builders works for the country. There has to be an alignment of needs. I don't know if Ed has the solution, but he is absolutely right to be asking the question.

Massive over reaction from the Spurs board. AVB needed more time yo get the squad working. Question now is who the hell do we get in to replace him. There isn't really a top tier manager out there right now. Unless Harry and Levy have kissed and made up...

MaxPB said:

Massive over reaction from the Spurs board. AVB needed more time yo get the squad working. Question now is who the hell do we get in to replace him. There isn't really a top tier manager out there right now. Unless Harry and Levy have kissed and made up...

Tim Sherwood is highly rated at Spurs. It might be him. More to the point, what is the new man's brief? Spurs are not going to get relegated and we are not going to get into the CL. That was the case last night as well. So what do you actually achieve by bringing in someone new? It's a puzzler, but it's what Spurs always do. As soon as we lost at home to West Ham it was pretty clear it would end this way. I think it's a real shame, but that's Spurs for you.

Slackbladder said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Before tim's latest pb-break, he was encouraging me that Spurs were good value vs Liverpool and I believe it was he who went so far as to say (paraphrasing) 'sorry SO but Spurs are on the up'.

I may be mistaken as I type through the pain at the lane.

Is tim on a break? I thought the site was unusally good humoured.

He's spending more time with his friesians

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

To make Richard Nabavi's point about the financial illiteracy of Ed Miliband on housebuilders, here are the last five years' profits and losses of those companies:

http://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/barratt/en/investor/performance/five
http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/8/g/Annual-Report-2013.pdf#page=117
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=PSN
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=TW.

Three out of four of these have made more losses than profits in the last five years.

Profit and loss at big businesses (which our big house builders are) over a five year period are not necessarily indicators of anything much. Losses are sometimes rather nice if they help you from a tax perspective' They may also indicate investments - such as land purchases in the case of builders - that will reap major gains further down the line. If you buy a lot of land when the market is flat, then start building when it picks up, you will show losses for a while. But then you will show profits. The issue is whether what works for house builders works for the country. There has to be an alignment of needs. I don't know if Ed has the solution, but he is absolutely right to be asking the question.

Land investment wouldn't necessarily show up on a P&L as the asset would be taken on the balance sheet. That's how is works for us when we invest in plants, property and equipment related to the business.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Massive over reaction from the Spurs board. AVB needed more time yo get the squad working. Question now is who the hell do we get in to replace him. There isn't really a top tier manager out there right now. Unless Harry and Levy have kissed and made up...

Tim Sherwood is highly rated at Spurs. It might be him. More to the point, what is the new man's brief? Spurs are not going to get relegated and we are not going to get into the CL. That was the case last night as well. So what do you actually achieve by bringing in someone new? It's a puzzler, but it's what Spurs always do. As soon as we lost at home to West Ham it was pretty clear it would end this way. I think it's a real shame, but that's Spurs for you.

I don't think Sherwood has the star power for out squad of primadonnas
Nice guy though. Levy should coax Fergie out for one last season!

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

To make Richard Nabavi's point about the financial illiteracy of Ed Miliband on housebuilders, here are the last five years' profits and losses of those companies:

http://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/barratt/en/investor/performance/five
http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/8/g/Annual-Report-2013.pdf#page=117
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=PSN
http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=TW.

Three out of four of these have made more losses than profits in the last five years.

Profit and loss at big businesses (which our big house builders are) over a five year period are not necessarily indicators of anything much. Losses are sometimes rather nice if they help you from a tax perspective' They may also indicate investments - such as land purchases in the case of builders - that will reap major gains further down the line. If you buy a lot of land when the market is flat, then start building when it picks up, you will show losses for a while. But then you will show profits. The issue is whether what works for house builders works for the country. There has to be an alignment of needs. I don't know if Ed has the solution, but he is absolutely right to be asking the question.

Land investment wouldn't necessarily show up on a P&L as the asset would be taken on the balance sheet. That's how is works for us when we invest in plants, property and equipment related to the business.

Maybe - I don't know. However, land is a builder's business. It's not yours. If you look at the revenues that the companies are generating, they are pretty solid - and clearly the markets are confident about the future.

AveryLP said:

JackW said:

Extra quiz clues you useless lot !!

b. A French Lieutenants Woman's father in law
c. Thelma had become a bit of a crow for some years.

b. Surely not a p0rn baron
c. A friend of a bear from Peru ?

Baroness Jay (Crow) of Paddington is the link and Jim the answer, Home Secretaries /Leaders being the common factor.

?

Partially correct. Baroness Jay of Paddington is person c

She had a well publicised affair with Carl Bernstein of "Watergate" fame. His wife then wrote a novel called "Heartburn" with Jay as the character "Thelma"

Home Secretary/leaders not the common factor

SouthCoastKevin said:

TheWatcher said:

So you'd be perfectly happy for Miliband to interfere with your business if he felt it was too profitable, or your employees weren't reaping the same rewards as you?

This is the thing - Miliband's approach seems so utterly kneejerk and short-termist. Not to mention liable to severely discourage businesses from actually, you know, doing business in this country.

People will always build houses. What we need is a market that incentivises them to do it at the rate it is needed. Clearly, we have not had that for many a long year.