Is that a joke. UKIP have done nothing this election - their support was built up before the short campaign. If anything I am convinced the debates harmed UKIP!
It's Dan Hodges. I leave you to determine whether it's a joke.
UKIP were always going to be squeezed - as they are in the press (who now seem to be in a 'don't mention UKIP' sort of mode. Smaller parties thrive on publicity and they haven't been given it.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 15m 15 minutes ago Daily Express: "Boris Gives Ed Bashing On TV". Must have been after the band finished, because I thought Ed took Boris.
If he thinks he can come around here all prodigal son like he can go and sling his hook .
But if the Labour campaign was really that much better, Labour would now be marching ahead in the polls. They aren't. The polls are static (some even show hints of Tory victory)...The Tory pitch could still win. It probably won't, but there is a chance. Panic now is pointless.
As a Tory pessimist (though no, still not a Tory, despite accusations of hidden agendas), perhaps you are right. Ed has been pretty impressive (barring that awful Davis interview) and Labour seem more up for it, better coordinated, but the reasons for them being likely to win and the scale of the likely win are the same as before the campaign started. The Tories are treading water, but they're not drowning.
Keep up the fight, Tories, you have to make this an uncertain fight to the very end at least.
Nigel Dodds speaking some real sense here. The Conservative campaign over Scotland has gone beyond the pale, with the pickpocket pictures of Salmond and whatnot.
In his eyes, SNP are Sinn Fein-lite...
“Take the ‘right’ of SNP MPs to vote in the Commons, or the supposed lack of legitimacy that stems from it. No one who purports to be a unionist can question it. They have the right. That’s why we fought and won the referendum: to enshrine the rights of Scots to go on sending representatives, fully equal to every other, to Westminster. Glib and lazy talk about SNP MPs somehow not being as entitled to vote in every division in the Commons as any other British MP simply fuels nationalist paranoia.”
It will be the last #megapollingmonday of the campaign tomorrow (due to bank holiday monday the following week) with Populus, Lord A, ICM and YouGov....
#bringit
We come here, we conquer and we're gonna kick some
I now find myself in the odd position of criticising Tories for pessimism.
They were always likely to lose, thanks to FPTP and the rise of UKIP. Jockageddon for Labour is the only thing preventing Miliband getting a majority.
But if the Labour campaign was really that much better, Labour would now be marching ahead in the polls. They aren't. The polls are static (some even show hints of Tory victory).
Tories should keep calm and carry on. Their USP is that they are running the country with quiet effectiveness, in difficult circumstances. That contrasts nicely with this absurd, bursting piñata of endless, uncosted Labour promises.
The Tory pitch could still win. It probably won't, but there is a chance. Panic now is pointless.
I think people have pretty much switched off from the campaign. It just seems too long from the budget. And no debates. The papers efforts at jockeying their teams look half hearted. All a bit underwhelming.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being posted on here about the campaigns - the public are taking almost no notice and haven't noticed anything significantly different between the Con and Lab campaigns.
YouGov asked about the campaigns yesterday:
Most impressive campaign? Con 15 Lab 16 (SNP win with 25)
i think the chances of the tories regaining momentum have slipped away. it seems the british public are easily duped with magic money tree promises and are happy to risk all to get it. its increasingly looking like Ed can start measuring the curtains for number 10
There's a huge amount of nonsense being posted on here about the campaigns - the public are taking almost no notice and haven't noticed anything significantly different between the Con and Lab campaigns.
YouGov asked about the campaigns yesterday:
Most impressive campaign? Con 15 Lab 16 (SNP win with 25)
So Miliband / Lab a touch more passionate but also more uninspiring and more dull. The inspirational numbers speak for themselves.
Nobody is noticing anything - meanwhile people on here are going into microscopic detail - as always!
Not a single Labour poster up here in my village. Labour might be 100% to win the ward, but NE Derbyshire is a 1-10, not a 1-100 shot. Lack of enthusiasm in the air is palpable.
i think the chances of the tories regaining momentum have slipped away. it seems the british public are easily duped with magic money tree promises and are happy to risk all to get it. its increasingly looking like Ed can start measuring the curtains for number 10
When you consider household debt is at record levels it is not suprising that a large percentage of the electorate are backing a party who wish to spend spend spend and all paid for by a tax on bankers.
We're appalled to learn @BenPBradshaw is knocking on doors of those displaying #Greens posters urging them to vote Labour. #scaretactic
When I was a Labour candidate many, many, year ago the Greens knocked on the doors of people with my posters up to tell them the Greens were Real Labour, and that I wanted to privatise the NHS (I didn't, and don't).
My additional point is that Labour apparently feel the need to be developing their policy post-manifesto launch. That is not an act of confident leadership.
It seems it is more like they are sat their with the test paper still mostly empty and now they are cribbing from other classmates and answers from an exam paper from 50 years ago.
The flaw in this new 'invent a policy' policy by Labour is that the give-aways are not confined to Scotland only with knobs on.
Don't think they are thinking up new policies as they go along. The policies were already thought out but deliberately designed to be released with a fortnight to go - one after another- giving the Tories too little time to attack them. Which one to attack ? The Tories will now be spending most of their time just criticising new policies from Labour - very little time to talk about their own - if they have any.
The Lynton Crosby contract - was there a rebate back built into it ?
So when their million homes promise is not met its OK because its not in the manifesto? Over the last 17 years how many times has any Labour politician complained that stamp duty is too high?
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
i think the chances of the tories regaining momentum have slipped away. it seems the british public are easily duped with magic money tree promises and are happy to risk all to get it. its increasingly looking like Ed can start measuring the curtains for number 10
When you consider household debt is at record levels it is not suprising that a large percentage of the electorate are backing a party who wish to spend spend spend and all paid for by a tax on bankers.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · THE TIMES: Labour's sweetener to help buy first home #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers
Also Murdoch has started tweeting against Cameron.
Looks like he's realised he's backed the wrong horse and is desperately trying to lay off some of his losses.
NI have thrown the lot at Milliband and it hasn't worked.
Murdoch left without influence - probably the biggest loser in this election.
Murdoch was never a supporter of Cameron. As a republican and a foreigner he never had any love for this country anyway, only for the profits he could screw us for.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being posted on here about the campaigns - the public are taking almost no notice and haven't noticed anything significantly different between the Con and Lab campaigns.
YouGov asked about the campaigns yesterday:
Most impressive campaign? Con 15 Lab 16 (SNP win with 25)
etc...
So Miliband / Lab a touch more passionate but also more uninspiring and more dull. The inspirational numbers speak for themselves. Nobody is noticing anything - meanwhile people on here are going into microscopic detail - as always!
Yes I agree. Far too much hyperventilating. I would expect more intensity in the last week. The tories made the key point about the election with their first poster. The SNP have provided the major issue of this election and its an issue I doubt no English voter can be unaware of.
Nigel Dodds speaking some real sense here. The Conservative campaign over Scotland has gone beyond the pale, with the pickpocket pictures of Salmond and whatnot.
In his eyes, SNP are Sinn Fein-lite...
“Take the ‘right’ of SNP MPs to vote in the Commons, or the supposed lack of legitimacy that stems from it. No one who purports to be a unionist can question it. They have the right. That’s why we fought and won the referendum: to enshrine the rights of Scots to go on sending representatives, fully equal to every other, to Westminster. Glib and lazy talk about SNP MPs somehow not being as entitled to vote in every division in the Commons as any other British MP simply fuels nationalist paranoia.”
The NI Unionists were bricking themselves over the prospect of a Scottish 'Yes', and are now bricking it over the prospect of an English 'Yes', in response to the SNP's possible influence over a UK government.
If and when Scotland goes (or is shown the door) all things become possible, as the English, especially the Southern English, calculate which other extremities won't be missed.
Northern Ireland has already been placed in the political vestibule since 1998...
recently i had to buy some new furniture and it was very very expensive even though it is supposed to be "double double sale" all the time according to what people say it is on the telly so WHAT A RIP-OFF BRITAIN! i hope that mr milliband also remembers that when people are buying a new home they need furniture too and if we can't afford furniture then we can't afford a new home so unless he makes the horrid furniture companies freeze their prices too then this will contribute to the HOUSING CRISIS!
also yesterday i had to go to the shops and buy some food for eating and i discovered that cornflakes were 20 pence more expensive than i remembered them being before so TESCOPOLY STRIKES AGAIN!! will nobody stop these out of control megacorporations from buying up and selling all our food at such larcenous prices? i could see in the blank eyes of the self-service checkout assistant the empty soul of someone being exploited at pitiful wages and i bet that the dairy farmer they bought the milk off, which i was hideously overpriced for, is also not paid his fair share. all that expensive food is contribting to our COST OF LIVING CRISIS and i hope the labour party make sure that the big supermarkets start paying suppliers more and giving proper wages for a proper day's work to all their assistants and that they should all be made to face a criminal offence for charging us customers so much. (by the way i saw on the news that some companies are making BILLIONS in losses and i think this is outrageous, because there are little old ladies out there who supplement their meagre pensions with a few shares in "trustworthy" companies and who rely on their dividends to get by and the company are putting billions of losses instead, which also means they are not paying corporation tax and so it is a form of TAX AVOIDANCE, sounds dodgy to me, and i bet that is why the uk is still in so much debt, so i think companies making big losses should be illegalised also... and they can ban "unexpected item in baggage area" too while they're at it)
anyway i went to the ironmonger as i needed a new saucepan and the prices were OUTRAGEOUS! what is the point of a freeze on our gas bills if we cant afford kitchenware to cook on it with? even though some people say the government should have other priorities and not be "financially illiterate" PLEASE MR NASTY BALLS DONT PREVENT NICE MR MILLIBAND FROM CLAMPING DOWN ON THE COST OF HOUSEHOLD ESSENTIALS!!!
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
Whatever the percentage may be, it isn't simply building houses - you need the road network to be enhanced to cope with the extra traffic, and utilities - water, power, gas, phone - need to be upgraded with extra capacity before building.
i think the chances of the tories regaining momentum have slipped away. it seems the british public are easily duped with magic money tree promises and are happy to risk all to get it. its increasingly looking like Ed can start measuring the curtains for number 10
When you consider household debt is at record levels it is not suprising that a large percentage of the electorate are backing a party who wish to spend spend spend and all paid for by a tax on bankers.
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
A vast one. Take a look at a map and work out the flood plains and mountains and moorland.
anyway i went to the ironmonger as i needed a new saucepan and the prices were OUTRAGEOUS! what is the point of a freeze on our gas bills if we cant afford kitchenware to cook on it with?
Was it your first saucepan purchase? If you were a first-time-buyer then the VAT would be waived or somesuch.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being posted on here about the campaigns - the public are taking almost no notice and haven't noticed anything significantly different between the Con and Lab campaigns.
YouGov asked about the campaigns yesterday:
Most impressive campaign? Con 15 Lab 16 (SNP win with 25)
So Miliband / Lab a touch more passionate but also more uninspiring and more dull. The inspirational numbers speak for themselves.
Nobody is noticing anything - meanwhile people on here are going into microscopic detail - as always!
Not a single Labour poster up here in my village. Labour might be 100% to win the ward, but NE Derbyshire is a 1-10, not a 1-100 shot. Lack of enthusiasm in the air is palpable.
In a week I haven't seen a single poster in Hereford, Leominster or Ludlow constituencies - well, a few Green posters, but they're not about to win the seat!
Marginal Brecon and Radnor is full of equal numbers of Tory and LD posters.
i think the chances of the tories regaining momentum have slipped away. it seems the british public are easily duped with magic money tree promises and are happy to risk all to get it. its increasingly looking like Ed can start measuring the curtains for number 10
When you consider household debt is at record levels it is not suprising that a large percentage of the electorate are backing a party who wish to spend spend spend and all paid for by a tax on bankers.
Which party does that not describe?
I think all of the parties are guilty of it, some more than others. Sadly it is not palatable to most voters.
Like the cost of living crisis. Politicians bang on and on about water bills and food but the biggest single expense is rent/mortgage payments. Telling voters their house will fall in value or flatline is not going to win much support.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
anyway i went to the ironmonger as i needed a new saucepan and the prices were OUTRAGEOUS!
Was it your first saucepan purchase? If you were a first-time-buyer then the VAT would be waived or somesuch.
well in the end i was so disgusted i just walked home to give my old saucepan a good scrubbing off instead, maybe that is "recycling" and makes me very "green" these days i don't know, and i went past a garden centre and i realised all the shrubs and plants were really dear! but that is such a crying shame because if they were nice and cheap than everyone can buy them and also it would cut down on CO2 emisisons because they would be absorbed by the leaves, and not only would it save us from global warming and apocalyptic flooding like in that al gore movie but also all the drab grey spaces would be reinvigorated and beautiful and green again just as Nature intended which would all be rather lovely really so PLEASE CAROLINE FLINT CUT DOWN THE PRICE OF TREES!
all this walking around wore out the soles of my shoes but have you seen the cost of a new pair of shoes lately, even the cheap plasticy ones that look like they were made in china because the label on them says that they were made in china? and womens shoes cost even more and women have to do more walking around because of all the shopping they have to do so i reckon this is a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue too and we shouldnt keep pussyfooting about when patriarchal shoeshop owners are really trying to exploit us all, HARRIET HARMAN MUST BAN THE EXPENSIVE SHOES!!
so i went into primark because decades of exposure to capitalist advertising has flawed my independent decision-making process (and should be banned) and anyway through the shop window the young shop assistants looked quite hot and i thought maybe one of them fancied me, anyway all their clothes were pap and the blaring music was horrid horrid horrid and should be banned, and upon closer inspection they were just sullen teenagers who were quite spotty but coated in layers of makeup to hide it and i dont think they really fancied me because they had no idea of proper customer service (which is why we need to BRING BACK PROPER APPRENTICESHIPS none of this gnvq in shop assistant studies lark) and they glared at me if i stared at them for too long, besides which i could hardly afford anything in there except the socks and even they were ludicrously expensive - and if i am going to obey my new years resolution to be environmentally friendly and walk a long way instead of using the dreaded internal combustion engine, then i think new fresh socks are not just one of life's little luxuries but a central pillar of a holistic nationwide approach to joined-up public health and envirotransportational management synergies so ANGELA EAGLE AND MICHAEL DUGHER STOP THEM ALL FROM PUTTING UP THE COST OF SOCKS!!!
anyway i went to the ironmonger as i needed a new saucepan and the prices were OUTRAGEOUS!
Was it your first saucepan purchase? If you were a first-time-buyer then the VAT would be waived or somesuch.
all this walking around wore out the soles of my shoes but have you seen the cost of a new pair of shoes lately, even the cheap plasticy ones that look like they were made in china because the label on them says that they were made in china? and womens shoes cost even more and women have to do more walking around because of all the shopping they have to do so i reckon this is a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue too and we shouldnt keep pussyfooting about when patriarchal shoeshop owners are really trying to exploit us all, HARRIET HARMAN MUST BAN THE EXPENSIVE SHOES!!
so i went into primark because decades of exposure to capitalist advertising has flawed my independent decision-making process (and should be banned) and anyway through the shop window the young shop assistants looked quite hot and i thought maybe one of them fancied me, anyway all their clothes were pap and the blaring music was horrid horrid horrid and should be banned, and upon closer inspection they were just sullen teenagers who were quite spotty but coated in layers of makeup to hide it and i dont think they really fancied me because they had no idea of proper customer service (which is why we need to BRING BACK PROPER APPRENTICESHIPS none of this gnvq in shop assistant studies lark) and they glared at me if i stared at them for too long, besides which i could hardly afford anything in there except the socks and even they were ludicrously expensive - and if i am going to obey my new years resolution to be environmentally friendly and walk a long way instead of using the dreaded internal combustion engine, then i think new fresh socks are not just one of life's little luxuries but a central pillar of a holistic nationwide approach to joined-up public health and envirotransportational management synergies so ANGELA EAGLE AND MICHAEL DUGHER STOP THEM ALL FROM PUTTING UP THE COST OF SOCKS!!!
So if some types of sock are price protected, you would be safe with protected socks, but should avoid unprotected socks?
recently i had to buy some new furniture and it was very very expensive even though it is supposed to be "double double sale" all the time according to what people say it is on the telly so WHAT A RIP-OFF BRITAIN!
How many Conservative MPs would vote against the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 if a similar measure returned to the House of Commons in the next Parliament? I doubt that more than 50 of the sorry bunch in the last Parliament would have defied the whip to oppose such a measure. There now seems a dangerous consensus that indicative planning is a good idea.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
Yes, that's right. I've bought a flat for £200k with the intention of renting it out for £10k a year, paying about £5k in interest payments, service charges maintenance etc.
Along comes nasty Ed M and makes rent it out for 3 years instead of the current 1 with inflationary rises built in. I'm so enraged that I'll leave my flat empty.
...... which would almost certainly mean Cameron still PM.
Con + LD = 319, just about OK. No chance LD go with Lab on those figures as they have explicitly ruled out anything dependent upon SNP.
As I pointed out earlier, the LDs might decide "no thanks." They rejected a minority coalition in 1974.
Who would want to be part of a government, propped up by UKIP/DUP on the one hand, or (with Lab) propped up by the SNP on the other?
In which case, SNP+Lab+Leftist allsorts can vote down a Tory minority QS/VoC and Ramsay Miliband gets the call from the Palace...
The thing is, though, that if one of Labour and the Conservatives can't win a confidence motion, that doesn't of itself guarantee that the other can. So, in your example, Ramsay Miliband might get the call from the Palace, and then collapse a few days later.
I agree that the LibDems would be mad to associate themselves with a weak minority government propped up by the SNP. The DUP might be easier to buy off, but any coalition (or even C+S) which doesn't have a clear majority with just two parties is asking for trouble.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
I didn't say that. But I agree with it!
Oops, it was antifrank I think. I don't know why Vanilla attributed it to you!
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
Yes, that's right. I've bought a flat for £200k with the intention of renting it out for £10k a year, paying about £5k in interest payments, service charges maintenance etc.
Along comes nasty Ed M and makes rent it out for 3 years instead of the current 1 with inflationary rises built in. I'm so enraged that I'll leave my flat empty.
Conservative supporters strong on hyperbole..
Who said anything about being outraged? Someone else might want to buy it as a second home. Or you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, so it would stay empty looking for a buyer.
Labour supporters very weak on knowledge of how the world works.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
I didn't say that. But I agree with it!
Oops, it was antifrank I think. I don't know why Vanilla attributed it to you!
Vanilla has obviously become sentient and can recognise sound posters who have a grasp of economics.
"I agree with antifrank." It's like 2010 all over again.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
I didn't say that. But I agree with it!
Oops, it was antifrank I think. I don't know why Vanilla attributed it to you!
Vanilla has obviously become sentient and can recognise sound posters who have a grasp of economics.
"I agree with antifrank." It's like 2010 all over again.
Agreeing with antifrank has proved to be a very profitable strategy!
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
It's not just Labour supporters, voters all over the political spectrum support policies like this.
British people just really, really hate free markets.
...... which would almost certainly mean Cameron still PM.
Con + LD = 319, just about OK. No chance LD go with Lab on those figures as they have explicitly ruled out anything dependent upon SNP.
As I pointed out earlier, the LDs might decide "no thanks." They rejected a minority coalition in 1974.
Who would want to be part of a government, propped up by UKIP/DUP on the one hand, or (with Lab) propped up by the SNP on the other?
In which case, SNP+Lab+Leftist allsorts can vote down a Tory minority QS/VoC and Ramsay Miliband gets the call from the Palace...
The thing is, though, that if one of Labour and the Conservatives can't win a confidence motion, that doesn't of itself guarantee that the other can. So, in your example, Ramsay Miliband might get the call from the Palace, and then collapse a few days later.
I agree that the LibDems would be mad to associate themselves with a weak minority government propped up by the SNP. The DUP might be easier to buy off, but any coalition (or even C+S) which doesn't have a clear majority with just two parties is asking for trouble.
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
It's not just Labour supporters, voters all over the political spectrum support policies like this.
British people just really, really hate free markets.
We've gone backwards on that, I imagine because the searing memory of the pre-Thatcher years has faded. It was a very painful lesson, and we might have to learn it all over again. That's one reason why I'm quite pessimistic - last time it took a couple of decades before people came to their senses.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
You do try to pass yourself off as an intelligent person:
1. Unless your property has been entirely paid for [ i.e. without mortgage ], you still have to pay interest on the mortgage;
2. There are no longer empty property Council Tax holiday. You have to pay the full CT.
So to spite your face, you'd rather cut your nose !
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
A vast one. Take a look at a map and work out the flood plains and mountains and moorland.
Come on then, give us a number. An approximate one is fine.
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
A vast one. Take a look at a map and work out the flood plains and mountains and moorland.
WE should build on 5% of our land. Anyone unhappy should not complain about high prices.
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
A vast one. Take a look at a map and work out the flood plains and mountains and moorland.
Come on then, give us a number. An approximate one is fine.
Presumably most developers would prefer to build in existing settlements rather than establish new ones, thus minimising the flood plain risk, and presumably avoiding mountain and moorland issues.
I hope we have learned from concrete cows and many traffic circles.
recently i had to buy some new furniture and it was very very expensive even though it is supposed to be "double double sale" all the time according to what people say it is on the telly so WHAT A RIP-OFF BRITAIN!
How many Conservative MPs would vote against the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 if a similar measure returned to the House of Commons in the next Parliament? I doubt that more than 50 of the sorry bunch in the last Parliament would have defied the whip to oppose such a measure. There now seems a dangerous consensus that indicative planning is a good idea.
I don't think as many Tories as you reckon would go in for a Prices Commission/Wage Board again, but even so, the direction of travel of the political mainstream is rather weird. How have we come to this point? I appreciate we've had a major economic crisis, but the cost of living crisis has been driven far more by low wage growth than by a resurgence of inflation - and the income issue is far more due to a decline in productivity growth than the usual scapegoats. The true long-run consequences of the productivity slowdown may transform this country's future entirely, but nobody on the political spectrum seems to acknowledge it let alone have any plan for tackling it! As for housing, all parties have been promising on it - and failing to deliver on it - for years. Things do seem to be escalating though, and there have even been rumours of the Tories considering a serious clampdown on BTL.
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
Whatever the percentage may be, it isn't simply building houses - you need the road network to be enhanced to cope with the extra traffic, and utilities - water, power, gas, phone - need to be upgraded with extra capacity before building.
I would dispute "before" because a lot of this stuff is done in parallel or later (eg a town can grow and the roads get busy so you build more) but obviously when you have more people and build more houses, you also build more infrastructure.
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
You do try to pass yourself off as an intelligent person:
1. Unless your property has been entirely paid for [ i.e. without mortgage ], you still have to pay interest on the mortgage;
2. There are no longer empty property Council Tax holiday. You have to pay the full CT.
So to spite your face, you'd rather cut your nose !
Who's economically illiterate here?
I speak as a Landlord.
So do I - and of course you're right. 3 year tenancies would make investing in property more attractive not less.
Interestingly none of the knee-jerks on here have spotted the actual (potential) flaw in this proposal.
Wonder if anyone can spot it before I go to bed...
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
A vast one. Take a look at a map and work out the flood plains and mountains and moorland.
Come on then, give us a number. An approximate one is fine.
Presumably most developers would prefer to build in existing settlements rather than establish new ones, thus minimising the flood plain risk, and presumably avoiding mountain and moorland issues.
I hope we have learned from concrete cows and many traffic circles.
More to the point, people want to live in existing towns, because they have existing friends and existing jobs and existing shops. But if British people have fear of heights or something and don't want to build upwards, new towns are the obvious solution.
...... which would almost certainly mean Cameron still PM.
Con + LD = 319, just about OK. No chance LD go with Lab on those figures as they have explicitly ruled out anything dependent upon SNP.
As I pointed out earlier, the LDs might decide "no thanks." They rejected a minority coalition in 1974.
Who would want to be part of a government, propped up by UKIP/DUP on the one hand, or (with Lab) propped up by the SNP on the other?
In which case, SNP+Lab+Leftist allsorts can vote down a Tory minority QS/VoC and Ramsay Miliband gets the call from the Palace...
The thing is, though, that if one of Labour and the Conservatives can't win a confidence motion, that doesn't of itself guarantee that the other can. So, in your example, Ramsay Miliband might get the call from the Palace, and then collapse a few days later.
I agree that the LibDems would be mad to associate themselves with a weak minority government propped up by the SNP. The DUP might be easier to buy off, but any coalition (or even C+S) which doesn't have a clear majority with just two parties is asking for trouble.
what is the possibility of an immediate second GE, what is possibility of neither party getting a QS through
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
Since it is multiple parties, they'll have different agendas and different timescales. It could be quite unpredictable.
Have you not noticed there may be a coherent block of 55 SNP/PC/Grn in the new HoC? They are already in a putative coalition, listening to the new sisterhood in the debates.
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stick...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
Whatever the percentage may be, it isn't simply building houses - you need the road network to be enhanced to cope with the extra traffic, and utilities - water, power, gas, phone - need to be upgraded with extra capacity before building.
I would dispute "before" because a lot of this stuff is done in parallel or later (eg a town can grow and the roads get busy so you build more) but obviously when you have more people and build more houses, you also build more infrastructure.
My 'before' was assuming a new sub-division. You would run all the utility lines before you put down the final road surface, otherwise you build the road and the utilities turn up one at a time and dig it up.
Yes, with existing roads you do it when you have to.
Looking at the detail, Labour's 3 year tenancy proposal would appear to have minimal impact on most of the current rental stock, as most will have existing BtL mortgages that under their terms expressly forbid AST of > 12 months, and thus will qualify for an exemption from these rules!
"There would be a provision that allowed landlords to enter into shorter contracts where they are contractually obliged to do so as part of a buy to let mortgage entered into before the start of this new legislation."
"Would there be any exceptions or strings attached? There would be some exemptions under this regime. Miliband's plans allow landlords with buy-to-let mortgages taken out prior to the legislation taking effect to continue using shorter agreements where the mortgage small print does not cater for longer tenancies."
There is one mainstream party with a cogent housing policy. UKIP. Quit the EU, and scale back unskilled immigration substantially. There are too many people, rather than too few houses.
Even if we left the EU unless UKIP are planning on kicking out a lot of recent migrants our population will still be going up sharply. We are going to need a load of new homes whatever we do.
True. But we need a policy in place that does not require us to build 2 new cities the size of Cambridge every year for.... ever.
Why not ? Only 2.2% of Britain has been built on. There is more than enough space. Get rid of the Nimby's.
A vast percentage of Britain is unbuildable on. No doubt every party is under pressure to make promises about housing (and lots of things) at elections, but far too much is out of their control to make them believable. But whatever happened to the NHS for labour? They are talking about anything but the NHS and are milking the fatted calf for everything but the NHS.
What percentage do you think is unbuildable on?
A vast one. Take a look at a map and work out the flood plains and mountains and moorland.
Come on then, give us a number. An approximate one is fine.
Presumably most developers would prefer to build in existing settlements rather than establish new ones, thus minimising the flood plain risk, and presumably avoiding mountain and moorland issues.
I hope we have learned from concrete cows and many traffic circles.
More to the point, people want to live in existing towns, because they have existing friends and existing jobs and existing shops. But if British people have fear of heights or something and don't want to build upwards, new towns are the obvious solution.
Where I live, county planning regulations are essentially (for residential areas) single family homes, no duplexes, apartments or town houses. In addition no new structure - home, office or factory - can be over 4 stories tall. They will grant exceptions depending on the situation. Planning here is I suspect much less of a bureaucratic nightmare than is the case in England.
On the other hand we have much more space compared to England.
...... which would almost certainly mean Cameron still PM.
Con + LD = 319, just about OK. No chance LD go with Lab on those figures as they have explicitly ruled out anything dependent upon SNP.
As I pointed out earlier, the LDs might decide "no thanks." They rejected a minority coalition in 1974.
Who would want to be part of a government, propped up by UKIP/DUP on the one hand, or (with Lab) propped up by the SNP on the other?
In which case, SNP+Lab+Leftist allsorts can vote down a Tory minority QS/VoC and Ramsay Miliband gets the call from the Palace...
The thing is, though, that if one of Labour and the Conservatives can't win a confidence motion, that doesn't of itself guarantee that the other can. So, in your example, Ramsay Miliband might get the call from the Palace, and then collapse a few days later.
I agree that the LibDems would be mad to associate themselves with a weak minority government propped up by the SNP. The DUP might be easier to buy off, but any coalition (or even C+S) which doesn't have a clear majority with just two parties is asking for trouble.
what is the possibility of an immediate second GE, what is possibility of neither party getting a QS through
Remote, given the fun the minor parties could have with a neutered Miliband as PM, after they give him a VoC...
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
Since it is multiple parties, they'll have different agendas and different timescales. It could be quite unpredictable.
Have you not noticed there may be a coherent block of 55 SNP/PC/Grn in the new HoC? They are already in a putative coalition, listening to the new sisterhood in the debates.
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stickf...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
From Labour's point of view this is the weird upside to losing all their seats in Scotland: Nothing but electoral downside to an early election for the SNP.
2112 Posts: 3 12:54AM Looking at the detail, Labour's 3 year tenancy proposal would appear to have minimal impact on most of the current rental stock, as most will have existing BtL mortgages that under their terms expressly forbid AST of > 12 months, and thus will qualify for an exemption from these rules!
Yep - you got it. Although I suspect a deal will be done with the lenders. Commercial property operates ok with min 5 year leases.
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
Since it is multiple parties, they'll have different agendas and different timescales. It could be quite unpredictable.
Have you not noticed there may be a coherent block of 55 SNP/PC/Grn in the new HoC? They are already in a putative coalition, listening to the new sisterhood in the debates.
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stickf...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
From Labour's point of view this is the weird upside to losing all their seats in Scotland: Nothing but electoral downside to an early election for the SNP.
Plus they can put PM Miliband's balls in a vice in Parliament, and slowly turn...
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
Since it is multiple parties, they'll have different agendas and different timescales. It could be quite unpredictable.
Have you not noticed there may be a coherent block of 55 SNP/PC/Grn in the new HoC? They are already in a putative coalition, listening to the new sisterhood in the debates.
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stickf...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
From Labour's point of view this is the weird upside to losing all their seats in Scotland: Nothing but electoral downside to an early election for the SNP.
Plus they can put PM Miliband's balls in a vice in Parliament, and slowly turn...
Like the LibDems have done to the Tories for the past five years?
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
Since it is multiple parties, they'll have different agendas and different timescales. It could be quite unpredictable.
Have you not noticed there may be a coherent block of 55 SNP/PC/Grn in the new HoC? They are already in a putative coalition, listening to the new sisterhood in the debates.
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stickf...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
From Labour's point of view this is the weird upside to losing all their seats in Scotland: Nothing but electoral downside to an early election for the SNP.
Plus they can put PM Miliband's balls in a vice in Parliament, and slowly turn...
Like the LibDems have done to the Tories for the past five years?
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
It's not just Labour supporters, voters all over the political spectrum support policies like this.
British people just really, really hate free markets.
Free markets? Aside from housing benefit subsidising rents and therefore landlords, presumably?
The dog that has not barked in the night time is the spectre of slum landlords returning, and it is interesting to wonder if Lynton Crosby's focus groups have found Rachmanism is still associated with the blue team.
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
Since it is multiple parties, they'll have different agendas and different timescales. It could be quite unpredictable.
Have you not noticed there may be a coherent block of 55 SNP/PC/Grn in the new HoC? They are already in a putative coalition, listening to the new sisterhood in the debates.
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stickf...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
From Labour's point of view this is the weird upside to losing all their seats in Scotland: Nothing but electoral downside to an early election for the SNP.
Plus they can put PM Miliband's balls in a vice in Parliament, and slowly turn...
Like the LibDems have done to the Tories for the past five years?
The Lib Dems were in a formal coalition with the Tories - which both sides have largely honoured- very different from a day by day vote by vote minority government propped up by multiple parties with no ministerial cars or salaries to worry about....
Haha! But the same block that votes down the Tories will also give a VoC to Miliband!
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
Since it is multiple parties, they'll have different agendas and different timescales. It could be quite unpredictable.
Have you not noticed there may be a coherent block of 55 SNP/PC/Grn in the new HoC? They are already in a putative coalition, listening to the new sisterhood in the debates.
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stickf...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
From Labour's point of view this is the weird upside to losing all their seats in Scotland: Nothing but electoral downside to an early election for the SNP.
Plus they can put PM Miliband's balls in a vice in Parliament, and slowly turn...
Like the LibDems have done to the Tories for the past five years?
You ain't seen nothin' yet...
And the beauty of that scenario is that to compel Miliband to tack to the Left and/or their special interests, and get any of his legislation through, they don't have to vote with the Tories.
The DUP statement means that EVIL is dead. There is no way Tories and Libs will have the majority to put it through and Libs are at best lukewarm to against anyway.
Milliband's policy for the day is an English only policy the Scots have a different tax and a different price level for first time buyers. Both the rent control and this latest one are populist and useless policies which will decrease the supply of housing.
However if Milliband had the basic sense to open up rather than close down a deal with the SNP then he could be measuring the Downing Street curtains by now. As it is the result is still up in the air and the aftermath uncertain for him. He needs to get himself off that Tory hook.
Only guaranteed winner from this election right now is Sturgeon. However something at the back of my mind tells me that 25-1 against Salmond as DPM is too high a price. A better bet might be Secretary of Scotland. Wouldn't that be capable of explanation and if there were no Labour MPs from Scotland left?
In the ludicrous event of Salmond being made SoS for Scotland, he would presumably be inducted into the Privy Council, whose oath includes...
'You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates...'
What rent controls do is deter those who own property and who may or may not choose to be landlords from letting out. Rather than let, they'll be more inclined to sell, avoiding the hassle and the decreased reward. So the proportion of property for rent and for sale will shift towards properties for sale.
Or they just leave it empty. Or it doesn't get built in the first place.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
TP If the proportion of property for sale increases, then that puts downward pressure on house prices presumably and therefore rents, which after all, is the goal.
RN Well I hope your also a strong proponent of regulatory powers to encourage more house building.
I can't see why so many people on here are getting het up over this. It's really rather modest in scope isn't it? If a landlord can't budget for a 3yr fix then maybe he shouldn't be in the game. The price isn't capped, it just can't rise more than inflation during the term.
In the ludicrous event of Salmond being made SoS for Scotland, he would presumably be inducted into the Privy Council, whose oath includes...
'You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates...'
Could he say it with a straight face?
Of course he could, the SNP supports the monarchy, it's a matter of policy.
But its a moot point as he's been a member for nearly a decade anyway. Joined in 2007. Nicola is a member too. It's automatic for the Scottish first minister
The DUP statement means that EVIL is dead. There is no way Tories and Libs will have the majority to put it through and Libs are at best lukewarm to against anyway.
Milliband's policy for the day is an English only policy the Scots have a different tax and a different price level for first time buyers. Both the rent control and this latest one are populist and useless policies which will decrease the supply of housing.
However if Milliband had the basic sense to open up rather than close down a deal with the SNP then he could be measuring the Downing Street curtains by now. As it is the result is still up in the air and the aftermath uncertain for him. He needs to get himself off that Tory hook.
Only guaranteed winner from this election right now is Sturgeon. However something at the back of my mind tells me that 25-1 against Salmond as DPM is too high a price. A better bet might be Secretary of Scotland. Wouldn't that be capable of explanation and if there were no Labour MPs from Scotland left?
Would be ridiculous to have the cabinet secretary for Scotland be somebody whose whole career has been based on trying to eliminate the Uk government from Scottish affairs. He'd be a fifth columnist in the cabinet.
In the unlikely event that there were no Lab MPs from Scotland they'd just put in Lord Reid or Lord Foulkes, or even a Labour MP like Jim Fitzpatrick or Pat McFadden who are Scots from English constituencies.
In the ludicrous event of Salmond being made SoS for Scotland, he would presumably be inducted into the Privy Council, whose oath includes...
'You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates...'
Could he say it with a straight face?
Of course he could, the SNP supports the monarchy, it's a matter of policy.
He's a strong personal supporter
IANAL, but sounds to me like he also swears to defend the Act of Union...
The DUP statement means that EVIL is dead. There is no way Tories and Libs will have the majority to put it through and Libs are at best lukewarm to against anyway.
Milliband's policy for the day is an English only policy the Scots have a different tax and a different price level for first time buyers. Both the rent control and this latest one are populist and useless policies which will decrease the supply of housing.
However if Milliband had the basic sense to open up rather than close down a deal with the SNP then he could be measuring the Downing Street curtains by now. As it is the result is still up in the air and the aftermath uncertain for him. He needs to get himself off that Tory hook.
Only guaranteed winner from this election right now is Sturgeon. However something at the back of my mind tells me that 25-1 against Salmond as DPM is too high a price. A better bet might be Secretary of Scotland. Wouldn't that be capable of explanation and if there were no Labour MPs from Scotland left?
Would be ridiculous to have the cabinet secretary for Scotland be somebody whose whole career has been based on trying to eliminate the Uk government from Scottish affairs. He'd be a fifth columnist in the cabinet.
In the ludicrous event of Salmond being made SoS for Scotland, he would presumably be inducted into the Privy Council, whose oath includes...
'You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates...'
Could he say it with a straight face?
Of course he could, the SNP supports the monarchy, it's a matter of policy.
He's a strong personal supporter
IANAL, but sounds to me like he also swears to defend the Act of Union...
I don't see how its possible to come to that interpretation, he just swears to defend her rights to current possessions. Queen of Scots covers it
The DUP statement means that EVIL is dead. There is no way Tories and Libs will have the majority to put it through and Libs are at best lukewarm to against anyway.
Milliband's policy for the day is an English only policy the Scots have a different tax and a different price level for first time buyers. Both the rent control and this latest one are populist and useless policies which will decrease the supply of housing.
However if Milliband had the basic sense to open up rather than close down a deal with the SNP then he could be measuring the Downing Street curtains by now. As it is the result is still up in the air and the aftermath uncertain for him. He needs to get himself off that Tory hook.
Only guaranteed winner from this election right now is Sturgeon. However something at the back of my mind tells me that 25-1 against Salmond as DPM is too high a price. A better bet might be Secretary of Scotland. Wouldn't that be capable of explanation and if there were no Labour MPs from Scotland left?
Would be ridiculous to have the cabinet secretary for Scotland be somebody whose whole career has been based on trying to eliminate the Uk government from Scottish affairs. He'd be a fifth columnist in the cabinet.
In the unlikely event that there were no Lab MPs from Scotland they'd just put in Lord Reid or Lord Foulkes, or even a Labour MP like Jim Fitzpatrick or Pat McFadden who are Scots from English constituencies.
More likely the post would just be abolished. Why do we need SoS or even a Scotland office any more?
In the ludicrous event of Salmond being made SoS for Scotland, he would presumably be inducted into the Privy Council, whose oath includes...
'You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates...'
Could he say it with a straight face?
Of course he could, the SNP supports the monarchy, it's a matter of policy.
He's a strong personal supporter
IANAL, but sounds to me like he also swears to defend the Act of Union...
I don't see how its possible to come to that interpretation, he just swears to defend her rights to current possessions. Queen of Scots covers it
But to effect independence - which Salmond is committed to - surely the Act of Union would have to be repealed, or at a minimum, amended away to almost nothing?
In the ludicrous event of Salmond being made SoS for Scotland, he would presumably be inducted into the Privy Council, whose oath includes...
'You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates...'
Could he say it with a straight face?
Of course he could, the SNP supports the monarchy, it's a matter of policy.
He's a strong personal supporter
IANAL, but sounds to me like he also swears to defend the Act of Union...
I don't see how its possible to come to that interpretation, he just swears to defend her rights to current possessions. Queen of Scots covers it
But to effect independence, surely the Act of Union would have to be repealed, or at a minimum, amended away to almost nothing?
If the SNP win massively in Scotland, it should be relatively easy to agree the abolition of the position of Secretary of State for Scotland-saves a decent sum of money at least.
A much more difficult matter will be the composition of the Scottish Affairs Committee which consists of 5 Labour, 3 Tories (what a farce), 2 Lib Dems, and 1 SNP. The SNP member hasn't attended for years since the Labour Chair, Ian Davidson, threatened to bayonet her.
Sorry, correction, he only threatened to give her a doing, it was the losers of the referendum that he threatened to bayonet :-)
The composition of the committee is meant to significantly reflect the composition of the House Of Commons as a whole, but I am sure the SNP will justifiably exploit the issue if the membership is not radically reformed in their favour-I could perhaps see them accepting a limitation to their membership in exchange for significant membership of other plum committees
Comments
Keep up the fight, Tories, you have to make this an uncertain fight to the very end at least.
Night all.
DH prime suspect.
I had plans for that 6 ft of 2x2 on 8/5/15 as well thieving bugger
Looks like he's realised he's backed the wrong horse and is desperately trying to lay off some of his losses.
NI have thrown the lot at Milliband and it hasn't worked.
Murdoch left without influence - probably the biggest loser in this election.
YouGov asked about the campaigns yesterday:
Most impressive campaign?
Con 15
Lab 16
(SNP win with 25)
Cameron / Con campaign:
Uninspiring 23
Dull 12
Passionate 7
Inspirational 1 - LOL
Miliband / Lab campaign:
Uninspiring 25
Dull 18
Passionate 11
Inspirational 3 - LOL
So Miliband / Lab a touch more passionate but also more uninspiring and more dull. The inspirational numbers speak for themselves.
Nobody is noticing anything - meanwhile people on here are going into microscopic detail - as always!
I wonder if they had any input into this
Over 75? Sign here if you're ready for death: GPs to ask ALL older patients if they'll agree to a 'do not resuscitate' order
I would expect more intensity in the last week.
The tories made the key point about the election with their first poster. The SNP have provided the major issue of this election and its an issue I doubt no English voter can be unaware of.
If and when Scotland goes (or is shown the door) all things become possible, as the English, especially the Southern English, calculate which other extremities won't be missed.
Northern Ireland has already been placed in the political vestibule since 1998...
also yesterday i had to go to the shops and buy some food for eating and i discovered that cornflakes were 20 pence more expensive than i remembered them being before so TESCOPOLY STRIKES AGAIN!! will nobody stop these out of control megacorporations from buying up and selling all our food at such larcenous prices? i could see in the blank eyes of the self-service checkout assistant the empty soul of someone being exploited at pitiful wages and i bet that the dairy farmer they bought the milk off, which i was hideously overpriced for, is also not paid his fair share. all that expensive food is contribting to our COST OF LIVING CRISIS and i hope the labour party make sure that the big supermarkets start paying suppliers more and giving proper wages for a proper day's work to all their assistants and that they should all be made to face a criminal offence for charging us customers so much. (by the way i saw on the news that some companies are making BILLIONS in losses and i think this is outrageous, because there are little old ladies out there who supplement their meagre pensions with a few shares in "trustworthy" companies and who rely on their dividends to get by and the company are putting billions of losses instead, which also means they are not paying corporation tax and so it is a form of TAX AVOIDANCE, sounds dodgy to me, and i bet that is why the uk is still in so much debt, so i think companies making big losses should be illegalised also... and they can ban "unexpected item in baggage area" too while they're at it)
anyway i went to the ironmonger as i needed a new saucepan and the prices were OUTRAGEOUS! what is the point of a freeze on our gas bills if we cant afford kitchenware to cook on it with? even though some people say the government should have other priorities and not be "financially illiterate" PLEASE MR NASTY BALLS DONT PREVENT NICE MR MILLIBAND FROM CLAMPING DOWN ON THE COST OF HOUSEHOLD ESSENTIALS!!!
Marginal Brecon and Radnor is full of equal numbers of Tory and LD posters.
Will UK turnout be below 65-70%?
Con 294
Lab 265
LD 25
SNP 48
...... which would almost certainly mean Cameron still PM.
Con + LD = 319, just about OK. No chance LD go with Lab on those figures as they have explicitly ruled out anything dependent upon SNP.
Like the cost of living crisis. Politicians bang on and on about water bills and food but the biggest single expense is rent/mortgage payments. Telling voters their house will fall in value or flatline is not going to win much support.
I know Labour supporters are not strong on economic literacy, but it's staggering that they don't even understand the most basic of all economic facts known to mankind, namely that if you artificially restrict the price, supply falls.
all this walking around wore out the soles of my shoes but have you seen the cost of a new pair of shoes lately, even the cheap plasticy ones that look like they were made in china because the label on them says that they were made in china? and womens shoes cost even more and women have to do more walking around because of all the shopping they have to do so i reckon this is a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue too and we shouldnt keep pussyfooting about when patriarchal shoeshop owners are really trying to exploit us all, HARRIET HARMAN MUST BAN THE EXPENSIVE SHOES!!
so i went into primark because decades of exposure to capitalist advertising has flawed my independent decision-making process (and should be banned) and anyway through the shop window the young shop assistants looked quite hot and i thought maybe one of them fancied me, anyway all their clothes were pap and the blaring music was horrid horrid horrid and should be banned, and upon closer inspection they were just sullen teenagers who were quite spotty but coated in layers of makeup to hide it and i dont think they really fancied me because they had no idea of proper customer service (which is why we need to BRING BACK PROPER APPRENTICESHIPS none of this gnvq in shop assistant studies lark) and they glared at me if i stared at them for too long, besides which i could hardly afford anything in there except the socks and even they were ludicrously expensive - and if i am going to obey my new years resolution to be environmentally friendly and walk a long way instead of using the dreaded internal combustion engine, then i think new fresh socks are not just one of life's little luxuries but a central pillar of a holistic nationwide approach to joined-up public health and envirotransportational management synergies so ANGELA EAGLE AND MICHAEL DUGHER STOP THEM ALL FROM PUTTING UP THE COST OF SOCKS!!!
Who would want to be part of a government, propped up by UKIP/DUP on the one hand, or (with Lab) propped up by the SNP on the other?
In which case, SNP+Lab+Leftist allsorts can vote down a Tory minority QS/VoC and Ramsay Miliband gets the call from the Palace...
Along comes nasty Ed M and makes rent it out for 3 years instead of the current 1 with inflationary rises built in. I'm so enraged that I'll leave my flat empty.
Conservative supporters strong on hyperbole..
I agree that the LibDems would be mad to associate themselves with a weak minority government propped up by the SNP. The DUP might be easier to buy off, but any coalition (or even C+S) which doesn't have a clear majority with just two parties is asking for trouble.
Labour supporters very weak on knowledge of how the world works.
"I agree with antifrank." It's like 2010 all over again.
British people just really, really hate free markets.
Or do you think they wouldn't enjoy him being their prisoner, and would instead prefer an immediate second election?
1. Unless your property has been entirely paid for [ i.e. without mortgage ], you still have to pay interest on the mortgage;
2. There are no longer empty property Council Tax holiday. You have to pay the full CT.
So to spite your face, you'd rather cut your nose !
Who's economically illiterate here?
I speak as a Landlord.
"So now you know why economists are useless: when they actually do understand something, people don't want to hear about it."
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html
I hope we have learned from concrete cows and many traffic circles.
Interestingly none of the knee-jerks on here have spotted the actual (potential) flaw in this proposal.
Wonder if anyone can spot it before I go to bed...
For these turkeys, they would have been handed Christmas-on-a-stick...
Install Miliband, and bind him with chains to do their bidding for as long as possible.
The last thing they would want is a fresh election.
Yes, with existing roads you do it when you have to.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/84352297129/ed-miliband-launches-election-campaign-with-rents
"There would be a provision that allowed landlords to enter into shorter contracts where they are contractually obliged to do so as part of a buy to let mortgage entered into before the start of this new legislation."
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/01/question-answer-ed-miliband-labour-rent-reform
"Would there be any exceptions or strings attached?
There would be some exemptions under this regime. Miliband's plans allow landlords with buy-to-let mortgages taken out prior to the legislation taking effect to continue using shorter agreements where the mortgage small print does not cater for longer tenancies."
On the other hand we have much more space compared to England.
12:54AM
Looking at the detail, Labour's 3 year tenancy proposal would appear to have minimal impact on most of the current rental stock, as most will have existing BtL mortgages that under their terms expressly forbid AST of > 12 months, and thus will qualify for an exemption from these rules!
Yep - you got it. Although I suspect a deal will be done with the lenders.
Commercial property operates ok with min 5 year leases.
Ah Boris. Think before you speak.
The dog that has not barked in the night time is the spectre of slum landlords returning, and it is interesting to wonder if Lynton Crosby's focus groups have found Rachmanism is still associated with the blue team.
Just abstaining would do.
It's the dream scenario.
The DUP statement means that EVIL is dead. There is no way Tories and Libs will have the majority to put it through and Libs are at best lukewarm to against anyway.
Milliband's policy for the day is an English only policy the Scots have a different tax and a different price level for first time buyers. Both the rent control and this latest one are populist and useless policies which will decrease the supply of housing.
However if Milliband had the basic sense to open up rather than close down a deal with the SNP then he could be measuring the Downing Street curtains by now. As it is the result is still up in the air and the aftermath uncertain for him. He needs to get himself off that Tory hook.
Only guaranteed winner from this election right now is Sturgeon. However something at the back of my mind tells me that 25-1 against Salmond as DPM is too high a price. A better bet might be Secretary of Scotland. Wouldn't that be capable of explanation and if there were no Labour MPs from Scotland left?
Lab 210
Con 210
UKIP 90
LD 55
SNP 30
Grn 30
PC 4
Oth 3
NI 13 (attending)
By abstaining, the LDs would put Con/UKIP into office instead of Lab/SNP/Grn.
'You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates...'
Could he say it with a straight face?
If the proportion of property for sale increases, then that puts downward pressure on house prices presumably and therefore rents, which after all, is the goal.
RN
Well I hope your also a strong proponent of regulatory powers to encourage more house building.
I can't see why so many people on here are getting het up over this. It's really
rather modest in scope isn't it? If a landlord can't budget for a 3yr fix then maybe he shouldn't be in the game. The price isn't capped, it just can't rise more than inflation during the term.
He's a strong personal supporter
In the unlikely event that there were no Lab MPs from Scotland they'd just put in Lord Reid or Lord Foulkes, or even a Labour MP like Jim Fitzpatrick or Pat McFadden who are Scots from English constituencies.
Its redundant
A much more difficult matter will be the composition of the Scottish Affairs Committee which consists of 5 Labour, 3 Tories (what a farce), 2 Lib Dems, and 1 SNP. The SNP member hasn't attended for years since the Labour Chair, Ian Davidson, threatened to bayonet her.
Sorry, correction, he only threatened to give her a doing, it was the losers of the referendum that he threatened to bayonet :-)
The composition of the committee is meant to significantly reflect the composition of the House Of Commons as a whole, but I am sure the SNP will justifiably exploit the issue if the membership is not radically reformed in their favour-I could perhaps see them accepting a limitation to their membership in exchange for significant membership of other plum committees