DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

Conservative plans to strengthen families and encourage social responsibility, and add to them the Liberal Democrat passion for protecting our civil liberties and stopping the relentless incursion of the state into the lives of individuals

= Vigilante gangs.

Big Bigots (xp)

I think it's something to do with getting rid of HIPs - the red tape surrounding selling your house.... So basically we're back at a situation where every single buyer has to get their own searches etc done for each property, well done everybody.

Yeah, I don't really understand this. I don't know much about it, because I've never had to get one, but I thought the idea of the HIPs was that the vendor had to get the survey done on the property (and provide other information) rather than each potential buyer. Which superficially seems like a good idea - if you're selling a house and buying a house, you've still got to get a survey done, it's just on your own house rather than the one you're buying, so it's not like your costs have significantly risen. And it should mean that people don't waste money getting surveys done on places they end up not buying. So I would have thought the only people who objected to it were surveyors, because it meant less work for them.

But then I saw them talking about this on Breakfast News (or whatever it's called) the other day and they said it had been introduced to stop gazumping, but wasn't very effective. They didn't actually explain this so I'm none the wiser.

Think it was supposed to stop gazumping because there would be less time available for other buyers to make offers while the original buyers were getting searches and whatnot done.

HIPs were bad news for property developers too (hello Kirsty!) because they ate into their profits.

i have heard why the hips were A Bad Thing, but can't remember. one reason was undue and unprecedented powers of access to private property by the g-men, shocker. all to do with erosion of concept of freehold.

HIPs were bad news for property developers

Ergo a good thing

If Kirsty Allsop buys a house and turns it into five flats, she then has to pay for 5 HIPs, boo hoo.

there was s.thing about how no 1 would trust a HIP since they were paid for by the seller. and in the case of property developers, who would be awarding large contracts to HIP-providers, well, you can see how that lack of trust might arise nahmean.

you create a Big Society matched by big citizens

Tagline for Little Big Planet 37: Big Friendly Dave's Tarragon Island

(sorry for being late to the horror)

I heard something about how the Labour government (remember them?) had watered down their original proposals for HIPs, no doubt after boohooing from Kirsty + her pals, and were left with something that didn't please anyone particularly. Now a lot of people are saying the HIPs were a good idea, esp. as originally proposed.

Basically, every time someone says these things are a lousy idea, feel free to hold up or post pix of Foxton's agents just being themselves.

Article in the paper today about the thousands of people who are now in the business of creating HIPs and HIP componenets, have developed software for them etc - all of whom will now be unemployed. Trebles all around!

but if it leads to more buyer survey work and a net employment increase then something something Big Society

something something Big Society

The new name for the United Kingdom

In the Big Society we will each be individually responsible for securing our own energy supply, either via friction or focusing the sun with a magnifying glass, or some other means - this will build a feeling of ownership and responsibility

"Well, we couldn't do a worse job, hurr-hup?"

http://dwarf-hamster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hamster_wheel-300x300.jpg

Big Society, Big Citizens, Big Wheel

Coalition restoring stability to the FTSE I see

Aye, and the pound's now at $1.43 - iirc the Daily Mail thought we should panic when it temporarily dipped under $1.50 with Brown's attempted coalition gazump.

big wheel = big revolutions!

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-condems-wont-repeat-uks-digital-economy-act/

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/21/article-1280010-09AC8DBB000005DC-862_634x648.jpg

actual lols

http://imgur.com/mG9aW.jpg

Not accountable to non-Mid Bedfordshire residents eh? She really is ridiculous but tbh Mr Ireland probably needs to move on as well. She's not going anywhere, Mid-Bedfordshire obviously loves her despite her hopelessness.

Monkey in blue rosette syndrome

Dude is perfectly within his rights to tweet from a meeting like that IMO.

Like taking money from a baby:

The Child Trust Fund (CTF) will be scrapped altogether, in a move expected to save £580 million year.

CTFs were introduced by the Labour Government in 2005 and have been available to every child born after September 2002. The Government gives a £250 voucher, rising to £500 in the case of low income families, to all newborn babies.

TBF the CTF was pretty ropey in conception and execution afaict

Thatcher only stole milk.

can't really say too much here, but yeah, the CTF has been an absolute disaster - principle fine, execution (esp the decision to link it to the stock market) lousy

It was the one thing that provoked GBrown to anger in public, the idea that this would get scrapped...

Child Trust Funds were intended to encourage saving and thrift? Sounds pretty Thatcherite to me.

In actuality it was a cheap way of paying lip service to children in poverty, obv

Keep the trust funds but ban kids imo.

What happens to people who already have a CTF (like my son)? Do we suddenly have to pay taxes on what's accumulated?

No idea, but attacking this will be fish in a barrel time for Labour: 'some people's kids will still have trust funds, George.'

Funds already set up are due to start maturing from 2020, and it is expected they will be retained.

This from The Sun tho, so take that as you will.

All in favour of zinging toffs but think there's little political mileage to be scored off of this if the take-up of CTFs is owt to go by.

I've heard criticisms of it from the left: The poorest parents need that money NOW, to buy shoes with, not when the kid's 18 and able to pay his or her own way anyway. And that it's a big giveaway to banks - they're only allowed to make 1% commission on these investment accounts but add up lots of little 1%s and that's a hefty chunk of change.

OK, that's fair enough.

It just seemed all along like a cosmetic scheme that wd have next to no impact on the people it was alleged to be targetting.

the take-up of CTFs is owt to go by

Three quarters of all new parents. That's pretty good.

Well like anything it's got good and bad points. I think on balance I'd like to see that money invested directly into higher education, which is surely the biggest need at age 18.

i.e. if the idea is to allow less well-off children to have some of the same options that well-off children do upon reaching the age of majority, those options pretty much all have to do with higher education so go ahead and fund that directly.

at the moment, i wld guess that most CTFs have lost value rather than gained any, tho' of course that might be different in ten years time.

those options pretty much all have to do with higher education

Those options used to have a lot to do with the prospect of meaningful long-term employment. I agree that HE funding is effed up but more kids going to Uni is no more a solution to poverty than giving them a £500 demob present for their 18th birthdays. "Education Education Education" is partly what was wrong about Blair/Brown's gov.

The CTF will pay out significantly more than £500.

(Assuming you contribute regularly)