Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open
If you’ve always been a lurker, why not Start posting, we were all once Absolute Beginners on PB, once you start posting, you’ll say to yourselves That’s Entertainment .
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The free wifi in my local throws the odd fit of moral righteousness and blocks pb for being too racy.
I get round the block by using Tor. However I cannot log on to pb for love nor money.
Is there any way round this?
If every pb'er( poster and lurker) had stuck in a tenner in the pot for every time you had said Osborne('s austerity) had failed, would the deficit be cleared by now?
They quote him saying "the perception of fairness" which is actually him quoting Barroso, then link to a film where he doesn't criticise legal tax evasion at all!
If a high taxing, big state loving politician was found to be evading tax then there might be a story here. That a low tax, small state ex stockbroker has done it is to be expected I would have thought.
The main point is he didn't denounce tax avoidance in the first place.
You don't understand the big picture do you. You flip to whatever economic guru/institute/newspaper is saying/(picking out ) what you want to hear so you can slag off Osborne. Would you like another 364 economists to agree with you?..that worked out well ..
Osborne has been dealt the most difficult hand for a Chancellor in the history of the UK. We all know why the UK is such a mess don't we..
Rather than prejudge, I would rather wait to see how things pan out over time, I mean that would be the sensible thing to do wouldn't it.
And looking at the new MORI index today the core switchers who are immigration obsessed over 65, Tory, South East outside London, Daily Mail and Express readers won't giv a toss
Tim lad,are you over 65,it's bloody you who brings the subject of immigration up most times on here.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/348180722542071808/photo/1
For the umpteenth time, Osborne is not inflating a property bubble, He is intervening in a market which had become illiquid, with demand and supply having fallen to record low levels.
As a result of his intervention, house building, mortgage lending and property sales have all stopped falling and started to grow again. However, all are still at much lower levels than pre crisis peak.
Similarly house prices have generally stopped falling and are now increasing but still at rates less than inflation and (though I haven't checked the measure) probably around the rate of real income growth. This is not unhealthy.
According to Zoopla, the total value of residential property owned by households exceeded £6 trillion at the peak of Gordon Brown's mid noughties boom. In the three years prior to 2007 the value of the UK's housing stock increased by £750 billion, some 15%. Since 2007, the total value has not recovered to pre-crisis peak levels.
There are other sources knocking about which give slightly different totals but tell the same basic story. Savills, for example, estimate that total values peaked in 2007 at £5.4 trillion and had fallen to £5.1 trillion by the end of 2012.
Savills state the value of owner-occupied property without any mortgage currently totals £1.7 trillion not far below the value of mortgaged owner-occupied propery of £1.8 trillion. This fits with BoE statistics for total residential property loans by UK banks of £1.2 trillion at end 2012.
Given that the level of intervention by Osborne in the housing mortgage market is capped at £130 billion (theoretical maximum) then his intervention will be at most 10% of market value. Hardly enough to create a housing boom and crash!
If any part of the housing market has gained in share since the crisis it is the private rented sector. Savills again:
The UK’s housing stock is estimated to be worth around 6.5% less than at the peak of the market in 2007. By contrast, the private rented sector has grown to such an extent that its aggregate value has risen by 36% in the same five year period. Since 2002, the volume of private rental stock has grown by 61%, while its value has risen by an astonishing 153%. This has happened over a decade when the total value of all housing stock has risen by 72%.
Now surprise, surprise ... what or who is responsible for this increase?
In the five years pre-peak, from 2002-2007, the sharp rise in house prices both restricted accessibility to home ownership amongst would-be first time buyers and underpinned demand from buy to let investors.
The dynamic has changed – for investors at least. With lower prevailing and forecast rates of capital growth, income yield has become increasingly important amongst investors looking for balanced mid-term returns.
Oh, Gord, it can't be can it?
Property owners have traditionally realised gains from both increases in capital value and rental income. With stagnant property values, they have had to increase rents to compensate for loss of gains from capital appreciation. In other words, for rents to fall, both housing supply must be increased and property values must start rising again.
Osborne is attempting to correct the distortions introduced by Brown's boom. Stimulating new building of residential property, assisting first time purchasers and providing liquidity to the general housing sale markets is simply "doing the right thing".
Now just imagine the impact on the banking sector and economy as a whole if Osborne sought to deflate house prices to a multiple of three times average incomes. Just count the trillions and you will soon see why shock therapy will kill rather than cure the patient.
Any rebalancing of house price ratios will take decades of consistent and prudent economic management. It is not an overnight job, tim.
Chris Froome is a phenomenon, he is ridiculously on form at the moment and could well dominate cycling for many many years to come.
He should maybe put on some weight and have a crack at Paris-Roubaix though.
May I politely suggest that you enter into an arrangement with OGH, under which all of your posts between 8.00 pm on a Friday and 2:00 am on a Saturday are either deleted or quietly reattributed to Pork.
I think you have misunderstood what I meant by liquidity.
Might I suggest that someone so hilariously out of touch as to think Lansley would be PM, as you did, may not be best placed to suggest a reattribution of posts for anyone other than themselves?
Your amusingly inept spin for omnishambles Osbrowne is just as effective as it was for Lansley.
" Several of the women attending Cabinet - myself included - have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing. "
I hope that Labour have moved on from their neanderthal recent past.
Joan Ryan
Feryal Demirci (Hackney Cllr)
Ayfer Orhan (Edmonton Cllr, Hemel Hempstead 2010 GE candidate)
Annajoy David (entrepreneur from Ilford, 2010 GE candidate in Scarborough and Whitby)
Jayne Buckland (Edmonton Cllr)
Let's just say there is a vocal anti Ryan faction within the CLP briefing the media...on Sunday we will see how widespread or convincing they are.
'And let's have an election with housing at the centre, about bloody time.'
Bring it on.
Labour's 13 years in government which combined mass immigration with the worst social house building record since the second world war.
Any voters going to believe Labour with that awesome record?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204154/Tony-Blair-takes-4-2m-loan-central-London-des-res-U-S-bank-advises.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1151892/New-questions-David-Milibands-property-empire.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028356/Lord-Mandelsons-8m-mansion-Questions-Labour-ministers-wealth.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213675/Ed-Miliband-A-2-3m-house-400-000-mortgage--Labour-leader-Ed-Millionaire.html
The seats that remained grey on my Labour target list were ones which either didn't have elections this year or only partially voted this year such as Rossendale & Darwen.
'Thanks for making the point though, I'm sure you thought you were somehow undermining my argument'
Your argument is undermined by Labour's record in government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2ZW_uTlhEQ&
It's okay to build on fields.
As long as they're sufficiently boring:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10135739/Build-on-boring-fields-says-minister.html
Best law firm name, Leamington Spa's very own Wright Hassell.
By all means build more flats. Stack em high - I hear there is a 60 storey or some such being built in London. Thats fine. Concreting over this green and pleasent land ? Not so much a fan of that - and neither will the rural voters be come 2015.
If Ed most likely gets into power - please I ask just lets keep the green belt of this country green. Please tell me you'll try and do that !
Absolutely. As an MP I was censured by the Labour group on the council for opposing a Green Belt development that they favoured. But we need to get serious about urban renewal (e.g. removing VAT from refurbishment and allowing taller blocks in cities). Stuff the skyline - I'm paying £1300/month for a 1-bedroom flat in a rough bit of north London, and that's nuts.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-22/the-age-newspaper-calls-for-prime-minister-julia-gillard-to-quit/4773460
Dan Hodges hit the nail squarely on the head with this article. I know the Conservative party are a broad church, but this alternative Queens Speech needs to be filed under one from the Twilight Zone.
Did it not occur to any of them that having a bank holiday for Thatcher wouldn't play well with the masses, probably even with those who thought she was the best prime minister in years.
Load, aim at feet, fire...
As for housing of course we should build on farmland. It's not as if much of england is built on - believe it or not, only about 10% of england is urban, and only 2.5% actully has buildings on it.
There are 2 problems with high rise flats - One is of course that people don't want to live in them very much. I can't say I blame them, I'd find living 200' above ground levels in a building with hundreds of other people pretty depressing if I'm honest.
Secondly there is also a practical infrastructure problem - hundreds of people living on a very small footprint creates serious problems with transport links to say nothing of car parking.
I'm fairly sure that the main problem with housing lies with negative equity - how is it possible to engineer affordable house prices, by whatever means, without leaving those who have bought in the last 10 years in massive negative equity, and before saying tough luck, consider that the results of that would be to make banks fall over again - but really really badly.
I'm fairly sure politicians of all stripes know this which is why rather than trying to sort the house price problem the keep instead trying to blow the bubble back up. Sooner or later, it's all going to come home to roost, and when does it'll really hurt.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/
...then reload the regular site and see if you're logged it.
UKIP share of vote in local elections ranked by division/ward:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFZZaXFjaVVfd1k1Sl8wa2ZMMXYydmc#gid=0
The purples scored more than 50% of the vote in 7 of the 2,208 divisions/wards being contested:
1. Huntingdonshire — Ramsey: 66.7%
2. Adur — Lancing: 53.8%
3. East Lindsey — Wainfleet & Burgh: 52.9%
4. Swale — Swale West: 51.4%
5. Guildford — Shalford: 50.7%
6. Fareham — Fareham Crofton: 50.4%
7. Isle of Wight — Wootton Bridge: 50.1%
http://www.film4.com/reviews/2013/the-spirit-of-45
I'll find out then if it gives me as much viewing pleasure as Jeremy Forrest looking at a St Trinian's film ;-)
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2013/06/bone-and-hollobone-the-bialystock-and-bloom-of-the-conservative-backbenches.html
Having said that, and leaving out the obvious Lady Thatcher Bank Holiday tongue-in-cheek idea, I'd certainly vote for anybody who had the other policies in their manifesto.
I simply can't even watch a Justin Bieber video without feeling dirty. Despite all his fame, I'd no idea what he was actually famous for so Googled a video of his last chart topper on YouTube - I had to switch it off within about 30secs.
The quality of his music or his singing ability is not what his fans care about. If you were at a Justin Bieber concert, all you would be able to hear would be screaming teenage girls all around you. That's why it didn't matter that he went ahead as planned with a UK tour while his voice was breaking.
-----------------
DavidL
There is something slightly bizarre about this in that the charge was abduction. She very clearly was not abducted.
She was abducted. She was taken out of the legal custody of her parents, without her parents' permission, at an age when she was not mature enough to make a responsible decision for herself in going with him.
-----------------
Plato
For an urban myth - the Guardian seemed to think it was true at the time and quoted the victim www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.
The real incident was one (relatively serious) incident of graffiti on someone's house, but with no physical harm to any person. The "urban myth" is that the story was distorted to become a story of rampaging mobs chasing paediatricians down the street, beating them up, and the idea that there were severl such incidents.
------------
old_labour
I wonder how much the papers are willing to pay the young woman in the teacher case for her story if she is willing to waive her anonymity.
What "young woman"? Surely you don't mean the 15-year-old girl who was abducted, whose name we all remember, and who has shown no indication of wanting to be anonymous in the first place? I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that she will be free to tell her story (and/or be identified) when she reaches the age of consent (18).
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23000323
This will be a huge test for the country's leadership. Extraordinary things have happened there over the last 20 years, but if you've been a few times you also start to understand just how fragile it all is. Managing what looks like it is going to be a hard core readjustment will be quite a challenge. The sensible thing for the Chinese to do would be to look outwards and to work with the rest of the world on a number of fronts to enhance trade lines, create a more transparent money system and so on; the huge concern is that they will look inwards - set up barriers, become more prescriptive, crackdown on their citizens etc. The world needs China, but - without doubt - China also needs the world. A China cris could be the aftershock that brings us all down.
This obviously effects the asset's value and the confidence that you are getting what you paid for.
It is even a problem with the high-profile buildings:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/21/china-concrete-sand-quality-scandal
And new structures such as bridges:
http://www.whatsontianjin.com/news-4387-china-s-construction-quality-questioned-after-6-bridges-collapse-within-a-year.html
All down to a massive haste to get things built, rampant corruption and blind regulation at the local an national government levels.
I'm not complaining for myself as I have two jobs and can make ends meet, but London rent level are nuts and it needs a serious building effort to do something about it. I grew up in an 8-floor block and it was great - and frankly wouldn't most people rather pay £800/month for that than £1300/month for a flat in a low-rise above a shop?