The Conservative Party

[SWP's back]

It’s probably called pragmatism and the DUP are hardly a threat at the next election.

 

[SWP's back]

Anyway as you haven't appreciated my answer, I was on about the 10 year gilts that gideon osbourne pumped loads of NIF money which unusaually returned a negative yield, yes very rare, but considering when he did it around 2007/8 the markets were not stable and so was a rash decission in my opinion.

There’s not been a negative yield on a 10 year U.K. Gilt. Lowest it’s been in a generation is 0.5% and that was for a couple of months. Since 2010 they’ve hovered been 1% and 3%.

Please tell me your source but you may want to check this one:

https://m.uk.investing.com/rates-bonds/uk-10-year-bond-yield-historical-data

I also want to point out Gideon wasn’t in charge of anything in 2007/08 and it was around 5% at that point anyway. I’m not having a go but I think you must be confusing something along the way.

Ps “The Markets” and the “Gilt Markets (or bond market)” are two very very different things.

 

[bluethrunthru]

It’s probably called pragmatism and the DUP are hardly a threat at the next election.

They could win more seats in Westminster and become something even more a minority govt needs to form a coalition with - having the DUP tweeking you by the short hairs is a threat come a GE.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

There’s not been a negative yield on a 10 year U.K. Gilt. Lowest it’s been in a generation is 0.5% and that was for a couple of months. Since 2010 they’ve hovered been 1% and 3%.

Please tell me your source but you may want to check this one:

https://m.uk.investing.com/rates-bonds/uk-10-year-bond-yield-historical-data

I also want to point out Gideon wasn’t in charge of anything in 2007/08 and it was around 5% at that point anyway. I’m not having a go but I think you must be confusing something along the way.

Ps “The Markets” and the “Gilt Markets (or bond market)” are two very very different things.

 

[Henkeman]

They could win more seats in Westminster and become something even more a minority govt needs to form a coalition with - having the DUP tweeking you by the short hairs is a threat come a GE.

Not really, it's a pretty finite number they can possibly win in Northern Ireland, and they don't stand anywhere else. It's about as high as it can practically go with them.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Not really, it's a pretty finite number they can possibly win in Northern Ireland, and they don't stand anywhere else. It's about as high as it can practically go with them.

when they hold a major party to effective ransom in Westminster any extra seats they win is a threat way beyond that which anybody would think possible.

 

[Henkeman]

when they hold a major party to effective ransom in Westminster any extra seats they win is a threat way beyond that which anybody would think possible.

Well that's what happens with minority and coalition governments. The smaller party always has disproportionate power. The Free Democrats in Germany have been more or less permanently in power with 10% of the vote.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Sorry no. You lace all your posts with pejorative judgements about the good guys and the bad guys, and yet weirdly enough, Labour never seem to be the bad guys for you. Something like Right to Buy was massively popular, but you don't just disagree with it, you call it morally wrong by evil Tories. Even when it's pointed out the house building nadir to replace those sold houses came under Labour, you still talk about the nasty Tories.

Now that's fine. You can regard the Tories as nasty if you want, it's no skin off my nose. But it is the politics of the playground.

I would point out that buying council houses was available well before Thatcher, and the idea was originally a
Labour one, they included it in their 1959 manifesto.
The nasty bastards.

 

[SWP's back]

A closer depiction than the one urban had in his head. Bravo.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

I would point out that buying council houses was available well before Thatcher, and the idea was originally a
Labour one, they included it in their 1959 manifesto.
The nasty bastards.

the Conservatives have always nicked Labour policies (Labour didn't get in in 1959 by the way and also proposed that the money raised from the sale of council houses would go to fund the building of more council houses unlike the CONservatives). Just a few they have nicked this year

1. Restaurant and Cafe workers to retain all their tips (announced by Labour in June 2018)
2. Lift the cap on councils borrowing to build new homes (announced by Labour in May 2017)
3. New Cancer strategy (announced by Labour in May 2017)
4. Levy on people overseas buying property in the UK (announced by Labour in May 2017)
5. Public Health approach to tackling violent crime) (announced by Labour in April 2018)
6.Supporting the UK's bid to host the 2030 World Cup. (announced by Labour in July 2017)

and more


Devoid of ideas, Devoid of ethics, Devoid of morals

 

[Ancient Citizen]

the Conservatives have always nicked Labour policies (Labour didn't get in in 1959 by the way and also proposed that the money raised from the sale of council houses would go to fund the building of more council houses unlike the CONservatives). Just a few they have nicked this year

1. Restaurant and Cafe workers to retain all their tips (announced by Labour in June 2018)
2. Lift the cap on councils borrowing to build new homes (announced by Labour in May 2017)
3. New Cancer strategy (announced by Labour in May 2017)
4. Levy on people overseas buying property in the UK (announced by Labour in May 2017)
5. Public Health approach to tackling violent crime) (announced by Labour in April 2018)
6.Supporting the UK's bid to host the 2030 World Cup. (announced by Labour in July 2017)

and more


Devoid of ideas, Devoid of ethics, Devoid of morals

Yes, they didn't get in, I know that, the inferences in this thread is that right to buy is some evil Tory concoction,
when it's nothing of the sort, and promises to build more after sale were simply that, promises, although I've not
seen that promise anywhere, you may enlighten. It's already been established that during Thatchers worst year, more houses
were built than the 13 years of a Labour administration, so your rebuilding point is difficult to sustain.
My parents bought their council house in 1970, a few more on the estate did, when this grew, the improvements to the
place were unbelievable, many grey, bland shitholes are now vibrant, pleasant places, my dad paid, I think, around £3000
for his, now I believe it's worth around £200,000.

 

[Damocles]

the Conservatives have always nicked Labour policies (Labour didn't get in in 1959 by the way and also proposed that the money raised from the sale of council houses would go to fund the building of more council houses unlike the CONservatives). Just a few they have nicked this year

1. Restaurant and Cafe workers to retain all their tips (announced by Labour in June 2018)
2. Lift the cap on councils borrowing to build new homes (announced by Labour in May 2017)
3. New Cancer strategy (announced by Labour in May 2017)
4. Levy on people overseas buying property in the UK (announced by Labour in May 2017)
5. Public Health approach to tackling violent crime) (announced by Labour in April 2018)
6.Supporting the UK's bid to host the 2030 World Cup. (announced by Labour in July 2017)

and more


Devoid of ideas, Devoid of ethics, Devoid of morals

Good.

Parties should absolutely nick ideas off each other. A good idea is a good idea.

 

[Henkeman]

Good.

Parties should absolutely nick ideas off each other. A good idea is a good idea.

Yup. Blair stole Tory ideas wholesale in 1997 (which is one reason he gets the "Red Tory" jibe), and it got him elected in a landslide. Normal service both ways, while the Lib Dems are more or less a focus group for the other two to nick ideas from when people like them.

 

[urban genie]

There’s not been a negative yield on a 10 year U.K. Gilt. Lowest it’s been in a generation is 0.5% and that was for a couple of months. Since 2010 they’ve hovered been 1% and 3%.

Please tell me your source but you may want to check this one:

https://m.uk.investing.com/rates-bonds/uk-10-year-bond-yield-historical-data

I also want to point out Gideon wasn’t in charge of anything in 2007/08 and it was around 5% at that point anyway. I’m not having a go but I think you must be confusing something along the way.

Ps “The Markets” and the “Gilt Markets (or bond market)” are two very very different things.

Sorry was meaning 2011 tbf as I was typing about 10 yrs gilts I unconciously subtracted 10 years off the present.

anyway I repeatedly posted I was replying while working, I wasn't trawling through a load of source material, basically remembering an FT article from last July that examined how the using NIF to buy gilts had ballsed up because of rare negative return, the osbourne part is from 2 telegraph articles about 2012 where the bonds were at a 300 year low and it was considered foolish to overinvest i the finacial climate of that time and also his idea of a 100 year gilt being created.

But as I said originally, I have sparred with you before and you are a beligerent bugger as am I, so tbf any further replies
by either of us will be going round in circles of disagreement on whether the NIF is dippes into and fucked about with by governments and so pointless to bother continuing.

Can I get back to calling Grayling a **** now?

 

[Henkeman]

Sorry was meaning 2011 tbf as I was typing about 10 yrs gilts I unconciously subtracted 10 years off the present.

anyway I repeatedly posted I was replying while working, I wasn't trawling throufh a load of source material, basically remembering an FT article from last July that examined how the using NIF to buy gilts had balled up because of rare negative return, the osbourne part is from 2 telegraph articlea about 2012 where the bonds were at a 300 year low and it was considered foolish to overinvest i the finacial climate of that time and also his idea of a 100 year gilt being created.

But as I said originally, I have sparred with you before and you are a beligerent bugger as am I, so tbf any further replies
by either of us will be going round in circles of disagreement on whether tge NIF is dippes into and fucked about with by governments and so pointless to bother continuing.

Can I get back to calling Grayling a **** now?

Can I just say that you and @SWP's back 's exchange on this matter taught me something about the subject? So you both did get something from it - sometimes you can be having a private argument and it has value to those reading.

 

[SWP's back]

Sorry was meaning 2011 tbf as I was typing about 10 yrs gilts I unconciously subtracted 10 years off the present.

anyway I repeatedly posted I was replying while working, I wasn't trawling through a load of source material, basically remembering an FT article from last July that examined how the using NIF to buy gilts had ballsed up because of rare negative return, the osbourne part is from 2 telegraph articles about 2012 where the bonds were at a 300 year low and it was considered foolish to overinvest i the finacial climate of that time and also his idea of a 100 year gilt being created.

But as I said originally, I have sparred with you before and you are a beligerent bugger as am I, so tbf any further replies
by either of us will be going round in circles of disagreement on whether the NIF is dippes into and fucked about with by governments and so pointless to bother continuing.

Can I get back to calling Grayling a **** now?

Negative return is and was positive (in capital terms).

Negative yield isn’t possible but the fact you were recalling an article explains the confusion. I was merely replying/correcting as it’s something I know a little about. There’s never been a negative yield on a U.K. Gilt that I know about.

 

[Fame Monster]

Yes, they didn't get in, I know that, the inferences in this thread is that right to buy is some evil Tory concoction,
when it's nothing of the sort, and promises to build more after sale were simply that, promises, although I've not
seen that promise anywhere, you may enlighten. It's already been established that during Thatchers worst year, more houses
were built than the 13 years of a Labour administration, so your rebuilding point is difficult to sustain.
My parents bought their council house in 1970, a few more on the estate did, when this grew, the improvements to the
place were unbelievable, many grey, bland shitholes are now vibrant, pleasant places, my dad paid, I think, around £3000
for his, now I believe it's worth around £200,000.

The policy in itself isn't nasty or evil if those houses are meant to be replaced or there are safeguards in place to stop people from ending up on the streets - like in the 1959 manifesto. But when there are next-to-no safeguards, and local authority budgets are being halved (yes, halved) and are deliberately prevented from replacing their housing stock then the inevitable result is a massive increase in homelessness. Every single time a Tory Government comes to power, we see a massive increase in homelessness and rough sleeping. That's when it's a nasty policy. Under Blair (for all his faults), rough sleeping was comparatively non-existent and the Tories inherited a record low on homelessness. I was told that the 25% increase in homelessness at the start of Blair's Government was not slight so what do you call the 935% increase in rough sleeping since the Labour record low in the mid-2000s or the 169% increase (using a different methodology) since 2010. Nasty? Evil? Wicked? There's a reason the Tories are known as the nasty party you know and this is a big reason why. Let's hope Theresa May's policies bring an end to it.

 

[Henkeman]

The policy in itself isn't nasty or evil if those houses are meant to be replaced or there are safeguards in place to stop people from ending up on the streets - like in the 1959 manifesto. But when there are next-to-no safeguards, and local authority budgets are being halved (yes, halved) and are deliberately prevented from replacing their housing stock then the inevitable result is a massive increase in homelessness. Every single time a Tory Government comes to power, we see a massive increase in homelessness and rough sleeping. That's when it's a nasty policy. Under Blair (for all his faults), rough sleeping was comparatively non-existent and the Tories inherited a record low on homelessness. I was told that the 25% increase in homelessness at the start of Blair's Government was not slight so what do you call the 935% increase in rough sleeping since the Labour record low in the mid-2000s or the 169% increase (using a different methodology) since 2010. Nasty? Evil? Wicked? There's a reason the Tories are known as the nasty party you know and this is a big reason why. Let's hope Theresa May's policies bring an end to it.

The trouble is that your nastiness is selective. Someone on the other side could equally point out that Labour's record of consistently crashing the economy and putting people out work, losing their homes and so forth in the name of spending is equally nasty, evil and wicked. The Tories are known as the nasty party to people who don't like them - I'd suggest Labour are known by some pretty vile terms by those who don't like them too. Now, you can pick on one element, and weirdly enough I don't disagree with you that it isn't good enough, but someone of a different view can pick on other things too. There are an awful lot of people still seething at what happened to them after the crash a decade ago who would be pretty determined to call Labour a lot worse than nasty.

You can pay your money and take your choice.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The trouble is that your nastiness is selective. Someone on the other side could equally point out that Labour's record of consistently crashing the economy and putting people out work, losing their homes and so forth in the name of spending is equally nasty, evil and wicked. The Tories are known as the nasty party to people who don't like them - I'd suggest Labour are known by some pretty vile terms by those who don't like them too. Now, you can pick on one element, and weirdly enough I don't disagree with you that it isn't good enough, but someone of a different view can pick on other things too. There are an awful lot of people still seething at what happened to them after the crash a decade ago who would be pretty determined to call Labour a lot worse than nasty.

You can pay your money and take your choice.

The Tories were self identified as "The Nasty Party" by our current PM.

 

[Henkeman]

The Tories were self identified as "The Nasty Party" by our current PM.

Not quite. She said it was important to understand why people were calling them that. And she was right to do so - self-reflection is never a bad thing.