Ex Lion Tamer

In economics there is supply side and demand side reforms. Supply side is making business more efficient, demand side is making sure consumers are able to buy goods and services. The basic fact is that the Tories had big cuts planned for the last parliament, but they had to row back on them because their initial cuts were causing economic growth to stagnate. They were taking money out of the economy and there was less money circulating for people to spend as a result, meaning less demand for goods and services. This is bad for consumers and bad for business. The way to have a healthy economy is to make sure that everyone has spending money to spend on businesses, so it becomes a virtuous circle. Public sector spending is a big part of that I'm afraid. The thing is, if you give people at the bottom money it grows the economy better because they have immediate spending needs, meaning they put it back into the economy via goods and services. If you give money to the rich or even middle class (via tax cuts or otherwise) then a sizable proportion save it rather than spending it because they already have everything they need. Everything the Tories have done in the last five years has hit the poorest hardest while helping the wealthy. I know you think that if you give rich people more wealth then they use it to create jobs but I just don't think that's true.

That doesn't even make sense

I don't want the tories sucking more demand out of the economy with their draconian cuts and bribes to the wealthy thanks

Comes down to whether you are happy with your circumstances I guess. Personally my standard of living has fallen so I want change

Contrast with Labour's detailed package of policies. This tory government is so bereft of vision

Middle England will be squealing if their house prices start falling and green space is built on

Labour now promising to have started construction on a million new homes by 2020. Let's hope they can pull it off.

Why isn't it happening if it's so easy?

It's exciting for me, I'd love to be able to move into a house and know that I'll be able to afford the rent for the next three years. At present my contract states that rent has to go up by between 3 and 7 percent a year, regardless of inflation or my wages. At some point I'd like to start a family so I want stability, not the threat of having to move every year

People talk about solving the housing crisis as if it's easy, but homeowners don't want their values to fall due to increased supply, and planning laws make it difficult to get houses built. I'm not holding my breathe that any party will have the balls to do it

1) that's pretty vague 2) the prices are still fixed by landlords, they just have to plan them over three years. I agree that the lack of housing needs to be solved as well, but tenants need more stability either way.

Why is it a crap idea?

Rents will be allowed to increase with inflation within the three years, and students will be able to agree one year contacts. See the link I posted earlier

Clearly that will need to be worked out and regulated. It's not that hard - we already have the tenancy deposit scheme which ensures that landlords can't deduct from deposits unless they have a good reason to (an excellent labour policy that has made a massive difference to tenant rights)

The default tenancy would be three years. These would start with a six month probation period. Tenants would be able to terminate contracts with at least one month notice as they can now while landlords would be able to terminate contracts with two months’ notice only if they can have good reason – not simply to put rents up. There would also be provision for new tenants like students or business people on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies subject to the landlord’s agreement. http://press.labour.org.uk/post/117361995039/labours-plan-to-give-generation-rent-a-better-and

OK, well I think landlords probably will up the rent from the off to make up for not being able to do so later on. But at least the tenant has the security of knowing what they'll be paying for the next three years

This is the thing, it's not really about bringing rents down, it's just giving people security for three years without being priced out of their own homes

Yeah , I was making a point really. It was Marr saying that which annoyed me the most today actually, him making out that because economists are against full on rent control, they are against this quite moderate policy. Tim Montgomerie was also teaming up with the tory press office on twitter to make this deception

Do you have a link? If true if be interested to have a read

I'm pretty disappointed that it's being portrayed as some draconian price freeze. Rents levels will still be decided by the market, it's just that each property rent amount will be set every three years rather than every one year. It's not exactly hard for landlords to average their costs over three years is it? Anyone who rents in London will be saying yes yes yes to this policy, it's so grim bring forced to move every year at the landlord's say so

I was surprised to discover that a couple of my friends are planning to vote lib dem. I don't understand it, but the libs seem to retain a support base

'Most damaging of all are the insiders openly talking on social media about how Cameron wants out. Andrew Neil tweeted: “Spoke to major Tory donor tonight. ‘Tory campaign useless. Cameron’s heart not in it. Not looking good’” – to which the Conservative writer and activist Tim Montgomerie replied: “DC has wanted out for a while. He has just wanted to go out on some sort of high and hasn’t been able to find that high.”' http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/tories-panicking-david-cameron-election

Funny how Ed Miliband was supposed to be the buffoon of this election

Oops http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/watch-david-cameron-bizarrely-switches-his-football-allegiance-to-west-ham/

It's this they're referring to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30794472