politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is masterly inactivity the government’s best course?

Sean_F said:

Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?

surbiton said:

kle4 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22673156

Labour and the Conservatives could unite to push through the controversial communications bill despite Lib Dem objections, a former Tory leader says.

The bill, allowing the monitoring of all UK citizens' internet use, was dropped after a split in the coalition.

But Michael Howard said David Cameron had "to act in the national interest" following the Woolwich murder.

Shouldn't be surprised Labour and the Tories would be as one on such issues, despite their pretense of being different from one another.

Would be ironic if the Tory party had to eat humble pie on this one.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?

Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.

Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.

However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.

I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.

Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.

AveryLP said:

another_richard said:

"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."

Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.

Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.

I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.

Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.

The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.

The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.

Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.

The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.

Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.

Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.

Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.

Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.

tim and ar to read carefully, repeat, and note.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?

Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.

Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.

However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.

I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.

Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

Richard T, what, in your view. Is the purpose of UKIP? To get Britain out of the EU and disband, or to become the main centre right party? Given the working class nature of UKIP support, would you expect the party to move slightly left on economic issues? Do you think you can win?

Clearly judging by his answer I differ substantially from MikeK on this.

Personally I am in UKIP first and foremost because I wish to see us withdraw from the EU and do not believe any of the other parties will do that. Labour and the Lib Dems will outright refuse a referendum and the Tories will simply make sure that any referendum vote and outcome can be twisted in such a way as to ensure we stay in.

However what happens to UKIP if we ever did leave the EU is another matter entirely. If they had in the interim moved towards being a truly Libertarian party as some of us hoped they would be then I would be strongly in favour of them challenging the three main parties on those grounds. But as TSE has already pointed out if we are being honest we all know that is not going to happen. They are not going to embrace gay equality this side of hell freezing over and under Farage they are never going to have a coherent economic policy that will allow us to slash government spending and have true small government. I strongly suspect that UKIP as a real mainstream party would be just as deceitful as the other three parties and would do anything to gain power and hold on to it irrespective of beliefs or promises.

I would like to think there is a faint chance I would be wrong on this - certainly the lack of whipping is something that gives me a small measure of hope but in truth I see UKIPs only real use in being to force the other parties - and primarily the Tory party - into taking the right action for the good of the country through fear of losing too many seats.

Mind you as you know I have utter disdain for all politicians and all parties so I am hardly the person to be making comments about the honesty and trustworthiness of them.

My own suspicion is that there is not much support for a libertarian party in the UK.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, bah.

We'd have less infighting with an era of triumvirates.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Next said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RodCrosby said:

RodCrosby said:

Anyhow, Britain better get used to hung parliaments/wrong-winner elections...

I wonder where I could get odds on the Libdems still being in coalition 10 years from now?

2010-15 Con/LD coalition
2015-20 Lab/LD coalition
2020-2025 Con/LD coalition

Might make an interesting thread topic?

I have a thread coming up in the next few days asking if Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will be the only constant in government this decade

Have you seen the Lib Dem polling?

I have but as Lord Ashcroft says

The Lib Dems will almost certainly do better on the day than their poll numbers currently suggest, since local factors and popular MPs are a more important part of their appeal.

HYUFD said:

Another Richard - The problem with a genuinely libertarian party ie pro gay marriage and immigration, as well as low taxes and slashed state spending is that it has a constituency of about 10% at the most, most of whom live in the wealthier parts of London. Perhaps the closest thing we have had to such a party is Clegg's LDs (excluding the issue of the EU), and look what it has done to their poll rating. UKIP knows it has to take a sceptical line on things like immigration to win over the punters who are also likely to be hostile to the EU and want lower taxes and have no desperate desire to see gay marriage, ie the populist right!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, the collision between Perez and Raikkonen was 100% Perez's fault. That's not remotely impressive.

Grosjean crashing 4 times in one weekend is rather a lot. Lotus aren't as flush as the other top teams, and I can't imagine they'll be very pleased.

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RodCrosby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RodCrosby said:

RodCrosby said:

Anyhow, Britain better get used to hung parliaments/wrong-winner elections...

I wonder where I could get odds on the Libdems still being in coalition 10 years from now?

2010-15 Con/LD coalition
2015-20 Lab/LD coalition
2020-2025 Con/LD coalition

Might make an interesting thread topic?

I have a thread coming up in the next few days asking if Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will be the only constant in government this decade

Great. I think it is a very serious question.

The electoral system has changed, and it tends to stick in a position for a number of decades....

Are we now entering The Era of Coalitions?

If you'd like to write a thread on this topic, I'd be very happy to run it.

I'm not sure a coalition system with only 3 credible parties is feasible over successive general elections.

It used to work in Germany because the FDP had a distinct niche that wasn't really left or right. I don't think the LibDems can pull that off.

If UKIP manage to get organised and make it a 4 party system it will be possible, although I suspect you would end up with a Tory/UKIP relationship like the CDU/CSU.

Charles said:

I suspect you would end up with a Tory/UKIP relationship like the CDU/CSU.

AndyJS said:

UKIP will probably quietly drop their opposition to gay marriage over the next few years on libertarian grounds.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm, do I do the morning thread based on this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10080835/Ukips-founder-says-the-party-has-gone-completely-fruitcake.html

If you did we would have to cut and paste half the comments from the last two threads.

another_richard said:

AveryLP said:

another_richard said:

"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."

Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.

Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.

I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.

Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.

The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.

The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.

Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.

The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.

Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.

Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.

Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.

Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.

tim and ar to read carefully, repeat, and note.

I'm well aware of what the present situation is.

That's why Osborne is throwing in his schemes to try to increase borrowing and house prices.

I also recall that Osborne, in his first budget, was expecting a £500bn increase in household borrowing by 2020.

Giving us a thousand unnecessary words doesn't change these facts.

SeanT said:

AveryLP said:

another_richard said:

"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."

Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.

Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.

I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.

Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.

The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.

There is a property bubble developing, but at the moment it is pretty much restricted to London, and, within London, a few particular favoured boroughs. Such as Camden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/may/20/average-london-house-prices-rockets

*refrains from cheering*

tim said:

@TimMontgomerie: Times cartoonist @MortenMorland targets David Cameron's holiday in Ibiza http://t.co/rMHbCqdw1l (no paywall)

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm, do I do the morning thread based on this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10080835/Ukips-founder-says-the-party-has-gone-completely-fruitcake.html

AndreaParma_82 said:

But Avery will surely visit the place to push for Rowenna.

AveryLP said:

another_richard said:

AveryLP said:

another_richard said:

"Yes, my political orientation and values are far closer to those of the Conservative Party than of the alternatives, but that doesn't lead me to support the government unreservedly."

Sorry Avery but when you started claiming that boosting house price were a valid economic strategy you lost all credibility as an 'independent' voice.

Whatever Cameron and Osborne do you'll be here cheerleading.

I do not recall RN lowering himself to supporting Osborne's house price bubble attempt.

Since when have I argued that Osborne is inflating a house price bubble? I refer you below to my last post on the subject.

The British Bankers Association (BBA) released its monthly retail banking report for April last Thurdsay. It is worth looking closely at key statistics which should inform debates on PB concerning the Treasury's lending support schemes.

The overall picture is that both households and corporations are continuing to deleverage: bank deposits are increasing and overall borrowing is falling. This trend has been consistent despite it being over four years since the Bank of England introduced its record low base rate pof 0.5%. It is counterintuitive when interest rates on both savings and borrowing are at all time lows, but evidences that neither consumer nor corporate confidence has fully recovered from the after effects of the financial crisis. It also explains why the Treasury and BoE are continuing to intervene in the markets to stimulate both supply and demand for lending.

Between April 2012 and 2013, personal deposits rose by 5.5%. Secured lending fell by 0.1% and unsecured by 1.3%. The fall in unsecured lending comes after growth in credit card borrowing of 5.8% was offset by a 6.7% fall in personal loans and overdrafts.

The 0.1% fall in net mortgage borrowing extends a linear falling trend from a growth rate of over 4% in April 2010. The net fall in borrowing reflects both contraction in mortgage lending and increased capital repayments. Households are paying off their loans faster than they are being replaced.

Other secured lending (e.g. equity release) has fallen by over 50% in this period: such loans were 37% lower in April 2013 over the same month a year earlier. Re-mortgages have also consistently fallen, though not to the same extent and with a small upturn recorded in the past quarter.

Net lending to corporates has also fallen as repayments have exceeded new lending. Although corporate lending has contracted over the past three years, the trend, unlike the case with personal borrowing, is positive with all sectors showing reduced rates of decline except the property sector. The construction sector has improved from a more than 20% decline in borrowing in 2010 to less than 10% this year, with manufacturing moving from -15% to better than -5%. Lending to the property sector has fallen from a 0.0% growth rate to more than -5%.

Whilst deleveraging in the economy has long-term benefits, its short term effects are to reduce bank turnover and profits and to constrain growth in both consumer spending and goods and services output. Hence the BoE's Funding for Lending scheme and the targetting of further government interventions to stimulate the construction and housing sectors.

Those arguing that the mortgage support schemes are inflating a sub-prime propety bubble should study the current bank figures more diligently. Net mortgage lending is falling and mortgage approvals have been broadly static at just under 60,000 per month even with the stimuli already being provided. The small recent increase in average house purchase price remains well below the general level of inflation. In other words, so far, the impact of government intervention has not been to inflate property prices, net mortgage lending or the volume and value of property sales: it has stablised the market and averted further decline.

tim and ar to read carefully, repeat, and note.

I'm well aware of what the present situation is.

That's why Osborne is throwing in his schemes to try to increase borrowing and house prices.

I also recall that Osborne, in his first budget, was expecting a £500bn increase in household borrowing by 2020.

Giving us a thousand unnecessary words doesn't change these facts.

Less than four hundred more words to help explain why Osborne's intervention in the housing finance market is required. Mostly sourced from HM Treasury documents.

The availability of high loan-to-value (LTV) lending has seen a sharp reduction in the wake of the financial crisis. In 2008, the number of mortgage products with a maximum of 95% LTV was over 700 and for 90% LTV just under a 1,000. By 2012 the numbers had fallen to 350 (90% LTV) and less than a 100 (95% LTV).

The consequences of this contraction for first-time buyers has been average deposits have risen from around 35 per cent of average incomes in 2006 to just under 80 per cent in 2012.

In other words, first time buyers have been all but shut out of the market. In 2012 there were 40 per cent fewer first-time buyers than in 2007. Since 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has estimated that the median age of an ‘unassisted’ [by family] first-time buyer has risen from 30 to 33.

Existing mortgagees with low equity in their properties have also been affected by the lack of availability of high LTV mortgages, meaning that far fewer are moving thereby depleting the available stock of properties suitable for first time buyers.

The overall impact on the market has been that residential property transactions fell by around 50 per cent after 2007 and have changed little since. Current turnover rates are equivalent to houses selling, on average, once every 25 years, compared to once every 15 years before the crisis.

It is clear that the housing market has not been functioning well. The 2012 government introduction of the Funding for Lending scheme (FLS) has reduced bank funding costs enabling interest rate reductions to be passed on the mortgagees and greater availability of mortgage products.

Further intervention, the Help to Buy equity loan and guarantee schemes, have been targetted at removing the high LTV barrier to first time buyers and to stimulate the supply of new-build properties.

In the circumstances of the mortgage credit squeeze evidenced in my previous post none of the measures introduced by Osborne could reasonably be characterised as designed to inflate house prices or create a housing bubble. They are simply stabilisation measures targetted at the most disadvantaged purchaser groups: first time buyers.

Neil said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

But Avery will surely visit the place to push for Rowenna.

I fear that would be the final nail in her coffin.

MikeK said:

kle4 said:

tim said:

kle4 said:

I really struggle to see why even his enemies care about Cameron going to Ibiza. Either it's fine for PMs to go on holiday, or it's not, and if it is, it's not like he's really going on holiday, he'll be kept informed and called back as needed, so it's not even funny to pretend it's a big deal.

All three right wing papers that ran the swivel eyed loon story are going after the chillaxing fop.

Right. So what? An awkwardly staged photo opp is at least partially relevant because it relates to someone trying to boost their public image, but going on holiday isn't, so I'm baffled anyone finds it that nourishing as comedic fodder, be they enemies from the left or right.

I agree that Cammo should be allowed go on holiday the same as any other citizen.
I also agree that the longer he stays away from Britain, the better.

AndyJS said:

@Andrea

Someone called Nigel de Gruchy used to be head of one of the main teaching unions. I remember having several days off school in the 1990s thanks to him.