Gideon wields his axe [The UK's Comprehensive Review Thread]

Visceral from Brooker:

In these uncertain, unsettling times, with unpopular policies being implemented by a patchwork coalition of the damned, Nick Clegg is proving to be perhaps the most useful tool in the government's shed. Not because he says or does anything particularly inspiring, but because he functions as a universal disappointment sponge for disenchanted voters. You stare at Nick Clegg and feel infinitely unhappy, scarcely noticing Cameron and co hiding behind him.

Governments around the world must be studying the coalition and working out how to get their own Clegg. He's the coalition's very own Pudsey Bear: a cuddly-but-tragic mascot representing the acceptable face of abuse. But unlike Pudsey, he actually speaks. Immediately following each unpleasant new announcement, Cleggsy Bear shuffles on stage to defend it, working his sad eyes and boyish face as he morosely explains why the decision was inevitable – and not just inevitable, but fair; in fact possibly the fairest, most reasonable decision to have been taken in our lifetimes, no matter how loudly people scream to the contrary.

It's hard not to detect an air of crushed self-delusion about all this. At times Clegg sounds like a once-respected stage actor who's taken the Hollywood dollar and now finds himself sitting at a press junket, patiently telling a reporter that while, yes, on the face of it, his role as the Fartmonster in Guff Ditch III: Fartmonster's Revenge may look like a cultural step down from his previous work with the Royal Shakespeare Company, if you look beyond all the scenes of topless women being dissolved by clouds of acrid methane, the Guff Ditch trilogy actually contains more intellectual sustenance than King Lear, and that all the critics who've seen the film and are loudly claiming otherwise are misguided, partisan naysayers hell- bent on cynically misleading the public – which is ethically wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/charlie-brooker-nick-clegg

The whole article is brilliant.
 
Growth was higher than expected this quarter: 0.8%.


I do like how people are saying this is "higher than expected" - expected by who? Those folk that didn't notice the iceberg a couple of years ago?

I had hoped that we'd have given up with reading the tea-leaves but apparently not we are still reporting these folk as if they can make accurate predictions.
 
As far as I am aware no one can. My point is that the story should not be that "growth is higher than expected" but simply that the economy has grown.
 
. . . because having an expectation is like "reading the tea leaves", yes. Then your view of this strongly suggests forming an expectation about whether the economy is or is not strong enough to withstand fiscal tightening in 2010 is also spurious. Unless you think one can have a more accurate expectation about the next two/three quarters than the next one quarter.
 
OTOH and taking a contrary view......

The buy to let market is supported by "unlimited" housing benefit payments. This has the effect of driving up (or supporting depending on whether or not you're a landlord) private rents. A landlord can charge what he likes, safe in the knowledge that the government will foot the bill.

This makes life much more expensive for the rest of the rental market.

£400 a week is £1,700 a month. If this becomes the de-facto limit for subsidised private rents then:

- Rents will be cheaper for private tenants too
- Artificially inflated house prices may come down (making them more affordable)
- Government (our !) cash doesn't go straight into the pockets of property speculators

of course on the downside we could end up with a catastrophic devaluation of property which plunges us into a financial meltdown that makes the last 2 years look like a walk in the park.

I'm slightly surprised that some Tory back-benchers aren't making more of a fuss. I presume some of them (and/or their friends) are doing very nicely exploiting the status quo
 
Yes, I have heard this argument, and it is fairly persuasive. There used to be a time when hardly anyone would accept HB, so I don't know what has happened in recent years.

The problem is with places not on the outskirts though, but closer to the centre, where there is a very rare chance of finding properties under £400 for a four bed. Why stick with leasing your flat to someone under £400 when someone can offer you the average for that area?

For example, a four bed house in Hackney doesn't exist on this website: http://www.findaproperty.com/search...areaid=5649&bedrooms=04&maxprice=400&weekly=1

For vulnerable people, having to leave their communities and support networks could be devestating.
 
All of the following are just opinions......

Yes, I have heard this argument, and it is fairly persuasive. There used to be a time when hardly anyone would accept HB, so I don't know what has happened in recent years. .

I would imagine it's growth of the buy-to-let sector combined with a softness in the rental market as a whole. A few years ago it was "no blacks, no Irish, no DHSS" because people were afraid that their property would be destroyed.

Now a quid's a quid, which is quite egalitarian. There aren't enough "high quality" (by the old, outdated and prejudiced measure) tenants out there to fill all the rental properties and so HB claimants are getting more of a look in

The problem is with places not on the outskirts though, but closer to the centre, where there is a very rare chance of finding properties under £400 for a four bed. Why stick with leasing your flat to someone under £400 when someone can offer you the average for that area?.

Well without the housing benefits claimants, there may not be enough demand to maintain the local average price.

For example, a four bed house in Hackney doesn't exist on this website: http://www.findaproperty.com/search...areaid=5649&bedrooms=04&maxprice=400&weekly=1

For vulnerable people, having to leave their communities and support networks could be devestating.

Sure, but then again for those of us who pay our own way (either in the rental sector or by buying houses), affordability is a key part of the location selection equation. Do people have the right to live wherever they gosh darn please and have the taxpayer pick up the tab ?

Furthermore, do landlords have the right to charge whatever they gosh darn please and have the taxpayer pick up the tab ?


BTW, if rental prices were to drop by 25% as a result of this measure then 7 of the 10 properties listed would fall into budget
 
Last edited:
. . . because having an expectation is like "reading the tea leaves", yes. Then your view of this strongly suggests forming an expectation about whether the economy is or is not strong enough to withstand fiscal tightening in 2010 is also spurious. Unless you think one can have a more accurate expectation about the next two/three quarters than the next one quarter.

No what is like reading tea leaves is the pretence of people in the finance industry and academic experts that they can predict the future. They can't.
 
Well without the housing benefits claimants, there may not be enough demand to maintain the local average price.

I hope so. I'm not educated enough in how those things work.

Sure, but then again for those of us who pay our own way (either in the rental sector or by buying houses), affordability is a key part of the location selection equation. Do people have the right to live wherever they gosh darn please and have the taxpayer pick up the tab ?

Furthermore, do landlords have the right to charge whatever they gosh darn please and have the taxpayer pick up the tab ?

Well, we always imagine the Jeremy Kyle teenage father living in a £100,000 flat in Kensington, but in reality (as I'm sure you know) these are rare. But the reality is often like this: a single mother pays her way in Westminster before being struck down with a mental illness/unemployment etc. I think it is the mark of a civilised society to provide for her before she gets back on her feet. By all means, make sure she gets back on her feet, just don't banish her to the outskirts away from her network of support.

It's also not worth forgetting that it is because of the Tories in the first place that we have so many poor people claiming HB, given Thatcher's 'right to buy' policy that eliminated much of the cheap social housing, leading people to move to the private sector. Cutting 51% from the Housing Budget (as they are doing) won't help that.
 
Do people have the right to live wherever they gosh darn please and have the taxpayer pick up the tab ?

Furthermore, do landlords have the right to charge whatever they gosh darn please and have the taxpayer pick up the tab ?

But surely that's a problem only up to a certain point. Otherwise we'd all be living in Kensington.

BTW, if rental prices were to drop by 25% as a result of this measure then 7 of the 10 properties listed would fall into budget

To take one city as an example, if everyone who lived in London was on housing benefit then this might happen, but I think the reality is that most people live in London because they work there. I suspect that there are many, many times more people paying their way than are on benefits (although I don't know that for sure it seems likely, despite what the Daily Mail keeps suggesting).

Given that, I don't think that any drop in rental costs is likely because of this change, and if there is any nowhere near 25%, simply because of the constant pressure of people desperate to live there and required to pay their way. The fact is everyone has to live somewhere and landlords aren't likely to cut their rents en masse so long as there are people willing to pay the market rates, and to be damned with people on housing benefit.
 
No what is like reading tea leaves is the pretence of people in the finance industry and academic experts that they can predict the future. They can't.

If people in finance thought they were unable to 'predict' the future they'd never invest any money at all.
 

Back
Top Bottom