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

edmundintokyo 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?

Probably not the best example - if I understand Southam's business right the whole thing is built on IP, which is a set of government-invented statutory monopolies, which allow you to shut out competitors to achieve an alleged ultimate gain for consumers. If it turns out (as it may well do) that the system is working well for him and his rights-owning customers but badly for consumers and people innovating to make useful stuff for them, then the government should certainly be stepping in to redress the balance, probably by changing the terms of those monopolies.

On Ed Miliband's latest thing, I suspect it'll turn out to be a load of cynical populist political grandstanding, but let's see what he actually says.

We report on IP, but we also rely on it. And, yes, governments change the rules all the time: on data protection, for example. The way we are told to handle data in different parts of the world has a fundamental affect on our business and we have to accept that and get on with it.

As for populist housing policies - it's hard to think that a promise to build more houses is really going to get many hearts a fluttering. It's not like being able to own your own council house or seeing your tax cut. There's no immediate result for voters to latch on to.

Jack W. Is Lord Longford another answer? Harold Pinter did the screen play for the film version of "French Lieutenant's Woman" and Lady Antonia was Lord Longford's daughter. Also, didn't Longford become known as Lord Porn after a fact-finding trip to Copenhagen?

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheWatcher 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.

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?

Nope. But I am not involved in house building. I do not think it is unreasonable to do all that is possible to ensure that the country's housing needs are met. The land is a national resource and should be managed as such. Whether Miliband's approach is right or not, I don't know. A couple of sentences out of a big speech are not going to tell us very much.

One could argue that IP is a national resource and should be managed as such, for the benefit of society as a whole.

But you wouldn't like that.

I think the main point SO is making is that his business is a publication that reports on intellectual property issues. Therefore, while it is about IP, he (or it) is not clipping a coupon on patents, nor is it engaging in patent law suits.

taffys said:

''What we need is a market that incentivises them to do it at the rate it is needed.''

Quite how wailing about housebuilders' profits and threatening to force them to sell their land would achieve that is utterly beyond me.

Ed reserves the right to savagely punish private industry and also rely on it to provide light, heat, transport and homes.

What a thoroughgoing idiot he is.

Ed is absolutely right to identify this as a major issue. It could well be that his solution is completely wrong - we don't know until we see it. But if it begins a proper conversation and, as with energy, leads the government to find its own solutions, then that is all to the good. We have a housing crisis in this country. It needs solving.

malcolmg said:

JackW said:

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 ?!?

I hardly think so , it may amuse unionist cretins but is merely another pointless jingoistic load of bollocks.

I rest my case m'lud.

TheWatcher said:

'We have a housing crisis in this country. It needs solving.'

Indeed. Now we're paying the price for 13 years of mismanagement and underinvestment by the previous administration. In hindsight, importing x million new residents looks like a pretty dumb idea, since there clearly weren't enough homes and resources for them.

No, we're paying the price for a much longer period of mismanagement than 13 years. Labour could and should have done more, but they didn't. The government before that did not do enough either. And despite the recent upswing in building, it's not happening now. Maybe it's the system itself that is at fault.

JonathanD said:

SouthamObserver said:

taffys said:

''What we need is a market that incentivises them to do it at the rate it is needed.''

Quite how wailing about housebuilders' profits and threatening to force them to sell their land would achieve that is utterly beyond me.

Ed reserves the right to savagely punish private industry and also rely on it to provide light, heat, transport and homes.

What a thoroughgoing idiot he is.

Ed is absolutely right to identify this as a major issue.

The Tories have been talking about this for several years now. Its why the number of builds are going up after hitting record lows under Labour and why there was a huge fuss the other year by Shire Tories, the Telegraph and Simon Jenkin about the Coalition forcing through changes in planning permission to make it easier to build in the countryside.

So now there can be a proper conversation. Labour can explain why it does not agree with the government approach; the government can explain why Labour is wrong and Ed's approach is flawed. This is what we want, isn't it?

It will be quite a long time since we have had a major party going into an election so obviously hostile to private enterprise. We are really back in the 80s with that one. Will it make a difference? Blair obviously thought it did.

Hopefully, Labour will suffer for this stupidity and after the election someone like Chukka can get them back on the right path again. The idea of the current leadership of the Labour party having control of our economy and foreign affairs is getting positively scary.

This was from a recent piece on this:

"One chairman of a FTSE 100 company who has been given the full Milibeam treatment left the meeting feeling a little nonplussed. “I could see he was making an intellectual argument about needing to work with business, but I wasn’t convinced his heart was in it,” he said. The fact that the chairman in question has energy interests maybe explains a lot.

Another chief executive of a FTSE 100 company left a similar “getting to know you” session describing it as one of the most awkward he had ever had the displeasure of attending. Mr Miliband appeared under-briefed and only seemed to have a passing understanding of and interest in the business the CEO led."

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/miliband-wooing-business-good-luck-210003562.html

People don't like big business in a populist sense but they do like the jobs and services that come with it. Ed seems to me to be painting himself in something of a corner here.

SouthamObserver said:

taffys said:

''What we need is a market that incentivises them to do it at the rate it is needed.''

Quite how wailing about housebuilders' profits and threatening to force them to sell their land would achieve that is utterly beyond me.

Ed reserves the right to savagely punish private industry and also rely on it to provide light, heat, transport and homes.

What a thoroughgoing idiot he is.

Ed is absolutely right to identify this as a major issue. It could well be that his solution is completely wrong - we don't know until we see it. But if it begins a proper conversation and, as with energy, leads the government to find its own solutions, then that is all to the good. We have a housing crisis in this country. It needs solving.

The long term average rate of private sector house building needed to meet forecast demand is around 240,000 dwellings per year.

The current rate of private sector building is 120,000-150,000 and is likely to be around 160,000 -200,000 next year.

The private sector is increasing production to meet the uplift in demand and house prices which follow from general economic recovery and specific government stimulus. The construction industry has the financial and land resources needed to meet and exceed the 240,000 dwellings per year requirement without further fiscal stimulus. An easing of planning constraints and delays should be the government's only major contribution.

Ed Miliband has promised to build a minimum of 200,000 dwellings per year over a five year term if elected in 2015. This promise appears to be co-incidental with the likely output of the private sector construction industry and would require no material change in government policy to achieve.

The problem sector is social housing where a sustainable business model needs to be developed to enable large scale construction. Virtually no local council building has taken place since the early 1990s and Housing Association builds are not recovering at the same rate as private sector construction. The main reason for this is that social housing is not self financing and requires substantial subsidies from the taxpayer both on a current and investment basis.

If Ed was serious about increasing house building he and his team would be working on ways to reform the social housing sector. Increasing rent levels and benefits to market rates; reforming tenancy agreements to increase liquidity of the existing housing stock; collecting arrears by deduction from beneftis at source; allowing housing associations to make reasonable surpluses on rental income which can then be used to service loans for expanding their stock; encouraging the sale to tenants of existing stocks to free funds up for reinvestment in construction etc etc.

Looking at this To Do list gives you some idea why it is much easier for Ed to grandstand on the profits of private sector housebuilders rather than develop policies which would require him and his party to take "hard decisions".

"It will be quite a long time since we have had a major party going into an election so obviously hostile to private enterprise."

Asking whether the current way in which big businesses conduct themselves is not the same as being hostile to private enterprise. Far from it, in fact.

JonathanD said:

The Tories have been talking about this for several years now. Its why the number of builds are going up after hitting record lows under Labour and why there was a huge fuss the other year by Shire Tories, the Telegraph and Simon Jenkin about the Coalition forcing through changes in planning permission to make it easier to build in the countryside.

It's not stopped local Tories attacking Labour councils for building in the countryside, and claiming that they are the true guardians of the fields - they are doing that in every Greater Nottingham borough except Tory-controlled Rushcliffe, where the council proposed to build fewer homes and was shot down by the CDLG's inspector.

The dichotomy between national and local message is a contributory factor to general disillusion with politicians of all kinds.

AveryLP said:

SouthamObserver said:

taffys said:

''What we need is a market that incentivises them to do it at the rate it is needed.''

Quite how wailing about housebuilders' profits and threatening to force them to sell their land would achieve that is utterly beyond me.

Ed reserves the right to savagely punish private industry and also rely on it to provide light, heat, transport and homes.

What a thoroughgoing idiot he is.

Ed is absolutely right to identify this as a major issue. It could well be that his solution is completely wrong - we don't know until we see it. But if it begins a proper conversation and, as with energy, leads the government to find its own solutions, then that is all to the good. We have a housing crisis in this country. It needs solving.

The long term average rate of private sector house building needed to meet forecast demand is around 240,000 dwellings per year.

The current rate of private sector building is 120,000-150,000 and is likely to be around 160,000 -200,000 next year.

The private sector is increasing production to meet the uplift in demand and house prices which follow from general economic recovery and specific government stimulus. The construction industry has the financial and land resources needed to meet and exceed the 240,000 dwellings per year requirement without further fiscal stimulus. An easing of planning constraints and delays should be the government's only major contribution.

Ed Miliband has promised to build a minimum of 200,000 dwellings per year over a five year term if elected in 2015. This promise appears to be co-incidental with the likely output of the private sector construction industry and would require no material change in government policy to achieve.

The problem sector is social housing where a sustainable business model needs to be developed to enable large scale construction. Virtually no local council building has taken place since the early 1990s and Housing Association builds are not recovering at the same rate as private sector construction. The main reason for this is that social housing is not self financing and requires substantial subsidies from the taxpayer both on a current and investment basis.

If Ed was serious about increasing house building he and his team would be working on ways to reform the social housing sector. Increasing rent levels and benefits to market rates; reforming tenancy agreements to increase liquidity of the existing housing stock; collecting arrears by deduction from beneftis at source; allowing housing associations to make reasonable surpluses on rental income which can then be used to service loans for expanding their stock; encouraging the sale to tenants of existing stocks to free funds up for reinvestment in construction etc etc.

Looking at this To Do list gives you some idea why it is much easier for Ed to grandstand on the profits of private sector housebuilders rather than develop policies which would require him and his party to take "hard decisions".

Is making rentals more expensive at a time when incomes are flat-lining really the way to solve the housing crisis?

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.

Land for a builder would work the same way as a long term contract. It would only show on the P+L as work undertaken on it is done, and the revenue/profit would be recognised over time.

Unworked land held by the business would be shown in the same way as stock, it on the balance sheet, and only transferred to the P+L as the building work was undertaken.

JonathanD said:

Yes, go to any part of the country and you can see opposition politicians attacking house building plans. I'd imagine the political constraints on house building are probably stronger than any profiteering by house building companies and is probably what should be looked at first.

Something I've wondered about is the extent to which councils can link permission to restrictions on type of construction. The usual rule seems to be 25% must be "affordable", defined as something like "not much more than the average in the area for a two-bedroom property". That often isn't affordable in any usual sense, and some areas may have a big shortage of some other kids of home - bedsits or 3-bedroom houses or whatever. Is all this laid down in legislation, or could councils say "we want 15% to be bedsits, 32% to be 2-bedroom houses, 10% to be luxury villas" or the like (obviously after negotiation)?

SouthamObserver said:

AveryLP said:

SouthamObserver said:

taffys said:

''What we need is a market that incentivises them to do it at the rate it is needed.''

Quite how wailing about housebuilders' profits and threatening to force them to sell their land would achieve that is utterly beyond me.

Ed reserves the right to savagely punish private industry and also rely on it to provide light, heat, transport and homes.

What a thoroughgoing idiot he is.

Ed is absolutely right to identify this as a major issue. It could well be that his solution is completely wrong - we don't know until we see it. But if it begins a proper conversation and, as with energy, leads the government to find its own solutions, then that is all to the good. We have a housing crisis in this country. It needs solving.

...

If Ed was serious about increasing house building he and his team would be working on ways to reform the social housing sector. Increasing rent levels and benefits to market rates; reforming tenancy agreements to increase liquidity of the existing housing stock; collecting arrears by deduction from beneftis at source; allowing housing associations to make reasonable surpluses on rental income which can then be used to service loans for expanding their stock; encouraging the sale to tenants of existing stocks to free funds up for reinvestment in construction etc etc.

Looking at this To Do list gives you some idea why it is much easier for Ed to grandstand on the profits of private sector housebuilders rather than develop policies which would require him and his party to take "hard decisions".

Is making rentals more expensive at a time when incomes are flat-lining really the way to solve the housing crisis?

Yes, if rental levels are suppressed by regulatory or government intervention. The alternative is to cross subsidise the sector by means of additional government borrowing and current expenditure. So higher taxes and borrowing: not a recipe for successful fiscal management post recession.

Remember too that rents tend to rise as asset prices fall and vice versa. In the social housing sector, the absence of a properly functioning market for property sales dampens this effect as it prevents the use of capital tied up in existing stock from being redeployed to building new stock for future demand. In turn, this increases the difficulty of financing the building of new stock and prevents supply rising to meet demand. For as long as this structure remains, rent levels in the social sector will not respond in the same way they do in the private sector. If you free the capital market up, rent levels will eventually fall, although I accept that there will need to be an interim upward correction before this will happen.

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out a major political aspect of the Commonwealth Games (apart from the fact that the Scots are paying 100% for it, it being booked under Labour as far as I recall in case anyone asks, versus having to pay their share of the London Olympics, this not being Barnettised).

It is that Mr Cameron has decided to open the marking of the centenary of the start of the Great War there and then in Glasgow. Whether this is commemoration or celebration we will see - but I am not impressed by ideas such as the England versus Germany trench football match. I hope it will eventuate in better taste. One might suspect that this is yet another Union Jack fest with the indy referendum at least partly in mind (like the Jubilee tea parties, which were almost non-existent, and the Olympic torch route whose arrangements excluded any use of Scottish or Welsh flags, but allowed Korean corporate flags, with unfortunate overtones ...).

Wjat is interesting is that Glasgow is, I suspect, the most sensitive place in the UK to celebrocommemorate the GW. Scottish military casualties were the worst in the UK, and in Europe other than Serbia - or so it is often believed, which is what counts in politics (as someone said the other day). Also part of the image - the home front was horrendous with rationing just in the nick of time to prevent famine in the poor, and the landlords ripping off the workers with their munitions wages, leading to rent strikes led by the womenfolk. And heavy industry subordinated to the war effort, then dumped postwar. Hence Red Clydeside, sending in the tanks in 1919, and all that. This was, as I understand it, historically crucial in the evolution of the Labour Party, and remains, a Labour heartland. There's enough truth in all of that to make me very interested to see how that plays out, even with the media spin on Mr Cameron's side.

Mr. Carnyx, I'd not heard the football story before, but I think that might actually be ok. It was a moment of fun and common humanity in the midst of machine warfare, a rare spot of light in a rather horrid war.

AveryLP said:

edmundintokyo said:

JonathanD said:

The Tories have been talking about this for several years now. Its why the number of builds are going up after hitting record lows under Labour

Out of interest, arguments here aside, do you really, seriously believe that sentence you wrote? Outside political pantomime land, house building took a dive all over the developed world because the banking system shat the bed, and it's picked up a bit as the economy picked itself up off the floor.

Edmondo

Let's play spot the Labour Government:

DCLG            
House Building  
Completions     

1991-92    9,900
1992-93    4,420
1993-94    3,530
1994-95    3,060
1995-96    3,010
1996-97    1,540
1997-98    1,520
1998-99      870
1999-00      320
2000-01      380
2001-02      230
2002-03      300
2003-04      210
2004-05      130
2005-06      320
2006-07      260
2007-08      250
2008-09      830
2009-10      780
2010-11    1,760
2011-12    3,080
2012-13    2,330

This looks more like a game of "spot the person who's cocked up their spreadsheet". Can you link directly to the document these numbers are coming from?

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.

But Ed Miliband is putting his argument on the basis of the increased profits that the housebuilders are now making. Either he accepts that the losses were real losses (in which case their dramatic improvement in profitability now is something he can't deplore but instead should be relieved about) or he doesn't (in which case he has to accept that the apparent dramatic improvement in profitability is something that is completely irrelevant).

antifrank 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.

But Ed Miliband is putting his argument on the basis of the increased profits that the housebuilders are now making. Either he accepts that the losses were real losses (in which case their dramatic improvement in profitability now is something he can't deplore but instead should be relieved about) or he doesn't (in which case he has to accept that the apparent dramatic improvement in profitability is something that is completely irrelevant).

That would require Ed (and labour) to understand how business works, along with economic cycles.

They clearly don't.

AveryLP said:

AveryLP said:

edmundintokyo said:

JonathanD said:

The Tories have been talking about this for several years now. Its why the number of builds are going up after hitting record lows under Labour

Out of interest, arguments here aside, do you really, seriously believe that sentence you wrote? Outside political pantomime land, house building took a dive all over the developed world because the banking system shat the bed, and it's picked up a bit as the economy picked itself up off the floor.

Edmondo

Let's play spot the Labour Government:

...

Table header should have stated that these figures are Local Government builds only.

OK, so now why not post the overall new build numbers - start is probably better than completion if we're after a government effect, since a new government can't really come in and say, "Builders, we demand that you started some houses a couple of years ago, which we order you to complete!".

Damian Lyons Lowe ‏@DamianSurvation 1h
We will be publishing 4 additional Alan Bown constituency polls tonight for tomorrow's press, watch this space...

4 in one go!

I don't understand the notion that the Saltire stunt at Wimbledon was a 'coup' for Salmond. It made him look like a pillock who was politicizing the occasion. Many people(particularly nationalists) thought it was funny, but most people just thought it was poor taste.

edmundintokyo said:

AveryLP said:

AveryLP said:

edmundintokyo said:

JonathanD said:

The Tories have been talking about this for several years now. Its why the number of builds are going up after hitting record lows under Labour

Out of interest, arguments here aside, do you really, seriously believe that sentence you wrote? Outside political pantomime land, house building took a dive all over the developed world because the banking system shat the bed, and it's picked up a bit as the economy picked itself up off the floor.

Edmondo

Let's play spot the Labour Government:

...

Table header should have stated that these figures are Local Government builds only.

OK, so now why not post the overall new build numbers - start is probably better than completion if we're after a government effect, since a new government can't really come in and say, "Builders, we demand that you started some houses a couple of years ago, which we order you to complete!".

Here you are, Edmondo

DCLG               
Housing Completions
All Sectors        
UK Total           


1992-93   178,420  
1993-94   186,850  
1994-95   195,580  
1995-96   197,710  
1996-97   185,940  
1997-98   190,760  
1998-99   178,290  
1999-00   184,010  
2000-01   175,370  
2001-02   174,200  
2002-03   183,210  
2003-04   190,590  
2004-05   206,620  
2005-06   214,000  
2006-07   219,070  
2007-08   218,530  
2008-09   178,780  
2009-10   152,950  
2010-11   137,400  
2011-12   145,910  
2012-13   135,120  

On completions vs starts there are stats available for both but over a period of two decades the difference is not significant.

As the private sector accounts for all but 12-15% of the totals over the period, then the government's direct impact is not really going to show in the total figures.

This doesn't apply though to Local Authority builds which are all but directly financed by Central Government. That is why the LA build stats, insignificant as they are in the total picture, are a good indicator of the lack of effort put into housebuilding by the 1992 - 2010 Labour Governments.

JackW said:

Quiz Clue - Historic Post

A pinniped in the Baron's khazi

Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Dickson, just skimmed the start and it's a slightly misleading summary.

It says that peers who move out of Scotland could remain in the Lords, and those who are Scottish-resident would not be peers in the Lords anymore.

OldKingCole said:

Slackbladder said:

OldKingCole said:

Do we need houses for sale or do we need houses for people to live in? By which I mean that in a time when by any reasonable definition many of the potential homeowners simply cannot afford to buy, we should be building council houses again. Or at least funding Housing Associations to build homes for rent.

Supply and Demand.

Don't follow your comment. Given that average household income for a working age family in the is country is about £33000, then it's a heavy gamble on inflation to buy a house for more that £140-150k. If we hadn't developoed a culture of home ownership, as opposed to renting in this country many people would be quite happily renting, rather than incurring huge debts though borrowing beyond their means.

So effectively you would rather the country incurs vast quantities of debt instead?

Of course maybe labour should have thought about the vast increase in population first, but clearly that never happened.

AveryLP said:

JackW said:

Quiz Clue - Historic Post

A pinniped in the Baron's khazi

Lord Privy Seal.

Correct.

Historically one of the Great Offices of State. Jay, Longford and Clyne all held the post in Labour governments.

More recently the post has been held with another cabinet position, presently Andrew Lansley as the Leader of the House of Commons.

Slackbladder said:

OldKingCole said:

Slackbladder said:

OldKingCole said:

Do we need houses for sale or do we need houses for people to live in? By which I mean that in a time when by any reasonable definition many of the potential homeowners simply cannot afford to buy, we should be building council houses again. Or at least funding Housing Associations to build homes for rent.

Supply and Demand.

Don't follow your comment. Given that average household income for a working age family in the is country is about £33000, then it's a heavy gamble on inflation to buy a house for more that £140-150k. If we hadn't developoed a culture of home ownership, as opposed to renting in this country many people would be quite happily renting, rather than incurring huge debts though borrowing beyond their means.

So effectively you would rather the country incurs vast quantities of debt instead?

Of course maybe labour should have thought about the vast increase in population first, but clearly that never happened.

I didn't realise that selling off council houses had reduced the National Debt to that extent! And the "vast increase in population" is as much down to the indigenous birthrate as anything else.

antifrank 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.

But Ed Miliband is putting his argument on the basis of the increased profits that the housebuilders are now making. Either he accepts that the losses were real losses (in which case their dramatic improvement in profitability now is something he can't deplore but instead should be relieved about) or he doesn't (in which case he has to accept that the apparent dramatic improvement in profitability is something that is completely irrelevant).

I am not sure that works. He could be arguing that big swings in profit and loss dictated by corporate accounting policy and board decision are not the way in which to develop a sustainable housing policy that works for the country. I don't know if he is doing that because I have not read the speech; but I suspect that very few of us have.

My purpose here is not to defend the specific policies that EdM comes up with as leader of the opposition, but his choice of subject. I am glad that he has picked housing, just as I think he was right to choose energy. And if he is looking more closely at the practices of big business generally, good on him there too. I may not have definitive answers, but I refuse to accept that the systems under which we are operating now are the optimal ones. Things may improve if we do start to ask a lot more questions.

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

AveryLP said:

AveryLP said:

edmundintokyo said:

JonathanD said:

The Tories have been talking about this for several years now. Its why the number of builds are going up after hitting record lows under Labour

Out of interest, arguments here aside, do you really, seriously believe that sentence you wrote? Outside political pantomime land, house building took a dive all over the developed world because the banking system shat the bed, and it's picked up a bit as the economy picked itself up off the floor.

Edmondo

Let's play spot the Labour Government:

...

Table header should have stated that these figures are Local Government builds only.

OK, so now why not post the overall new build numbers - start is probably better than completion if we're after a government effect, since a new government can't really come in and say, "Builders, we demand that you started some houses a couple of years ago, which we order you to complete!".

Not necessarily - even starts for big developments can go through a cycle of both local and national governments. For instance the massive 9,000+ home development at Northstowe in Cambridgeshire was first mooted in 2007, and planning was only given in 2012, although I don't think the S106 has been finalised. Whilst the start figures will probablyoccur under this government, the previous may (*) deserve credit.

http://www.northstowe.uk.com/

In addition, start figures can be gamed, especially to get around the three-year planning lapse period.

(*) Although if you look at Northstowe's history, perhaps not.

Well, this is my point. You couldn't get the conclusion Avery wants ("spot the Labour government") from these numbers even if the trends supported it, which they don't, which is why he posted some subset of the actual numbers - local authority builds, which have basically been none since the early 90s - instead.

Urrrm, no. Although the situation is complex, the basic figures do indicate trends.

Add in Pathfinder (and nobody seems inclined to even start defending that) and other items, and it is clear that Labour cared f'all about housing whilst in power. They said fine words and did next to nothing, even during a boom.

Slackbladder said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Scottish independence: Peers could remain in Lords

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-peers-could-remain-in-lords-1-3234381

Because clearly he's not motivated by self-interest.

Seems an no-brainer to me. No Scotland as part of the UK leads to a reduction of the house of lords.

As SO says a independent Scotland would lead to the entire setup at Westminster needing to be considered

There is precedent on that, with Irish independence. In that instance, the existing Irish peers in the Lords kept their places but when they died, were not replaced. Like Scottish peers at the time, and almost all hereditaries now, Irish peers elected a set number of their cohort to Westminster; when one died, a by-election was held. As no Scottish peer, whether life or hereditary no has a place in parliament solely on account of inheritance, there's no reason the same process couldn't apply in the event of Scottish independence.

Taking a long view there have been two post war 'step change' falls in housing delivery. One after the late 1970s when we stopped building Council housing and the second coming out of the late 80s/early 90s recession. The latter was after Ridley got duffed up by the shires and the 'Plan Led' system was strengthened.

In the 2000s, until the bust, private completions across the cycle were roughly back to the 1980s level. It remains to be seen what the pick up will be from the unprecedented recent fall although (again over the cycle) business as usual would be a third lower than Miliband and the Government want, which in turn is less than we probably need (and housebuilders are already talking privately about capacity constraints).

The Urban Renaissance/Brownfield First approach was initiated by Gummer and retained by Prescott, and has suited both parties because it pleases rural NIMBYs and urban authorities. However it clearly reduces the 'natural rate' of housing delivery because it costs more, and it reduces family housing in favour of small flats. Hence both parties moving away from it now. It will be interesting to see if Boles/Pickles continue to turn the screw on their own authorities.

ojcorbs said:

I don't understand the notion that the Saltire stunt at Wimbledon was a 'coup' for Salmond. It made him look like a pillock who was politicizing the occasion. Many people(particularly nationalists) thought it was funny, but most people just thought it was poor taste.

Many thought it showed how much he loved his country., only people south of the border thought it was poor taste.

richardDodd said:

Salmond does not need any help from the Saltire, he manages to look a pr*ck most of the time

Richard, that is poor even by your low standards