Surely the actual budget no? That's around November or is Kami-Kwasi just going to avoid them altogether so there's no OBR forecast.
No ma'am. We had the "Growth Plan" on Friday. OBR forecast buried. Then in 2 months we get the Medium Term Fiscal Plan. With an OBR forecast. Then in the Spring the actual budget with another OBR forecast.
Thats assuming he lasts long enough in role to deliver said MTFP. We have had quite a lot of Chancellors, and despite him doing Madame Swish's bidding she will undoubtedly dispose of him if the markets force it.
Surely the actual budget no? That's around November or is Kami-Kwasi just going to avoid them altogether so there's no OBR forecast.
The budget was shifted to March a while back,
Now it's perfectly possible to move the budget back to November but at the moment it's the Autumn Statement which was always more to do about spending then tax...
"Liz is... I can't say the word..." "She's .... again, I can't say the word..."
Does Burley actually cite a name? or is this, as with almost every line of so called tory jitters being reported by the left wing press, unattributed?
"Former Tory Minister" is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Could be David Gauke, could be Dominic Grieve, could be Rishi Sunak, could even be Anna Soubry. If nobody's prepared to put their name to the comment, its utterly meaningless.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
- Health: difficult to cut spending materially (although you can save a few billion around the edges with homeopathy, tattoo removal and stuff the Mail hates). More important to reorganise to maximise the health benefit from a certain budget to limit future increases. Reorientate to prevention and sort chronic care / long term nursing (which doesn’t need to be in expensive hospitals) to free up capacity
Just as a small point, NHS England has pretty much stopped all spending on homeopathy, as of 2018.
I’ve no problem with them spending on it so long as it’s priced as a placebo pill
"Liz is... I can't say the word..." "She's .... again, I can't say the word..."
Does Burley actually cite a name? or is this, as with almost every line of so called tory jitters being reported by the left wing press, unattributed?
"Former Tory Minister" is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Could be David Gauke, could be Dominic Grieve, could be Rishi Sunak, could even be Anna Soubry. If nobody's prepared to put their name to the comment, its utterly meaningless.
It could also be a figment of the reporter's imagination....
Sacking Sir Tom Scholar on Day 1 wasn't terribly smart, was it?
Why?
They wanted a break with ideology of the past they didn't believe in. They need a team that believe in, or at least willing to implement, their own ideology.
The markets will just have to react and adapt. We have a freely floating exchange rate, so let it freely float.
I thought the whole point of the Civil Service was that people would deliver policy even if they didn't agree with it. Indeed, having sceptics on a team is useful, more likely to spot the pitfalls and have some solutions ready to go if it all goes to shit.
You shouldn't have to sack people to implement your democratic mandate. Advisers advise etc...Whether that mandate exists is another question.
Well yes, you shouldn't have to. Scholar should have been prepared to implement Truss and Kwarteng's ideas.
If he wasn't, then he wasn't fit to be in the Treasury, he should go into politics if he wants his own ideas instead.
Any evidence of your claim that he wasn't willing to do his job? Or are you simply assuming the worst about him in order to justify his sacking?
They need to neuter "Treasury Orthodoxy" - aka keeping at least something of a grip on the public finances - to smooth the way for their "Reforms". I imagine this is why he had to go.
Spending GBP400bn on furlough, riddled with fraud, paying people to do nothing: Perfectly logical.
Spending GBP60bn giving people their own money back: Insane gamble of the century.
Or could it be the other way around.....?
Well I don't share the majority opinion that this is an insane gamble. It's reckless, yes, but I see the political logic.
Objectively speaking the government should be running a neutral fiscal policy (in tandem with monetary tightening from the BoE) until inflation is under control. Then, with that more stable platform, go with their ideological preference for slashing tax.
But they can't wait because of the electoral timetable. With no "Charisma" Johnson, no "Scary" Corbyn, no Brexit fatigue, the urge to get "it" done, and seeking another tory term after 14 years of tory terms, they know they're bound to lose on "time for a change" if they just tick along with damage limitation and do what's sensible.
So, this. Rock in the pond. Create newness, create a BIG divide with Labour, tory tax cutters vs labour tax & spend, small state vs stale old consensus, dynamism vs back to Brown ... you know, all the shit you come out with ... try and build that narrative between now and the election.
Might work. I doubt it but it might. I think, oddly, that the chance of both a Con majority and a Lab majority is greater now than it was a week ago.
The next thing to look out for is the 'emergency spending review' where vast portions of the state are slashed.
Love to know what spending can actually be slashed - there really isn't much that can go without the impact being electorally damaging to the Tory party.
Overseas aid
The mindset that says “it’s all a bit difficult” doesn’t really help
- Health: difficult to cut spending materially (although you can save a few billion around the edges with homeopathy, tattoo removal and stuff the Mail hates). More important to reorganise to maximise the health benefit from a certain budget to limit future increases. Reorientate to prevention and sort chronic care / long term nursing (which doesn’t need to be in expensive hospitals) to free up capacity
- Pensions: break the triple lock but replace with a staged increase to a fixed percentage of the median wage. But you need to be creative - say you get 40% of the median wage (say about £10k) as a tax free payment. Then up to another £7k on a pound for pound matching from *earned* income. If you do no work you get £10k. If you earn £7k you get £7k.
- State employee pensions: time to switch to DC for everyone
- Welfare: phase out in-work benefits. It’s a subsidy to employers to pay unsustainably low wages for low return jobs
- Housing benefit. Use the governments market power effectively FFS
Just a few thoughts - the reality is you need to hit the big budgets and figure out how focus resources where needed. Cutting overseas aid, for instance, isn’t going to make a meaningful difference
But I refuse to believe that that there is no unnecessary spending in a £600bn+ budget
I believe that everything should be treated like Overseas Aid: a certain percentage of government spending goes on it. As the government income goes up or down year by year, the amount that is spent in each area changes accordingly.
And at elections, parties campaign on the percentages. "We'll spend 10% on health and only 1% on the military!" or "We'll spend 8% on education and 9% on health" etc. They can also leave a few percent for contingency, or say they will borrow a couple of percent.
It means the pain of contractions gets spread equally over departments, as do the benefits of a boom.
Makes it impossible for departments to budget on a long term basis
Sacking Sir Tom Scholar on Day 1 wasn't terribly smart, was it?
Why?
They wanted a break with ideology of the past they didn't believe in. They need a team that believe in, or at least willing to implement, their own ideology.
The markets will just have to react and adapt. We have a freely floating exchange rate, so let it freely float.
I thought the whole point of the Civil Service was that people would deliver policy even if they didn't agree with it. Indeed, having sceptics on a team is useful, more likely to spot the pitfalls and have some solutions ready to go if it all goes to shit.
You shouldn't have to sack people to implement your democratic mandate. Advisers advise etc...Whether that mandate exists is another question.
Well yes, you shouldn't have to. Scholar should have been prepared to implement Truss and Kwarteng's ideas.
If he wasn't, then he wasn't fit to be in the Treasury, he should go into politics if he wants his own ideas instead.
Any evidence of your claim that he wasn't willing to do his job? Or are you simply assuming the worst about him in order to justify his sacking?
They need to neuter "Treasury Orthodoxy" - aka keeping at least something of a grip on the public finances - to smooth the way for their "Reforms". I imagine this is why he had to go.
Spending GBP400bn on furlough, riddled with fraud, paying people to do nothing: Perfectly logical.
Spending GBP60bn giving people their own money back: Insane gamble of the century.
Or could it be the other way around.....?
Well I don't share the majority opinion that this is an insane gamble. It's reckless, yes, but I see the political logic.
Objectively speaking the government should be running a neutral fiscal policy (in tandem with monetary tightening from the BoE) until inflation is under control. Then, with that more stable platform, go with their ideological preference for slashing tax.
But they can't wait because of the electoral timetable. With no "Charisma" Johnson, no "Scary" Corbyn, no Brexit fatigue, the urge to get "it" done, and seeking another tory term after 14 years of tory terms, they know they're bound to lose on "time for a change" if they just tick along with damage limitation and do what's sensible.
So, this. Rock in the pond. Create newness, create a BIG divide with Labour, tory tax cutters vs labour tax & spend, small state vs stale old consensus, dynamism vs back to Brown ... you know, all the shit you come out with ... try and build that narrative between now and the election.
Might work. I doubt it but it might. I think, oddly, that the chance of both a Con majority and a Lab majority is greater now than it was a week ago.
The next thing to look out for is the 'emergency spending review' where vast portions of the state are slashed.
Love to know what spending can actually be slashed - there really isn't much that can go without the impact being electorally damaging to the Tory party.
Overseas aid
The mindset that says “it’s all a bit difficult” doesn’t really help
- Health: difficult to cut spending materially (although you can save a few billion around the edges with homeopathy, tattoo removal and stuff the Mail hates). More important to reorganise to maximise the health benefit from a certain budget to limit future increases. Reorientate to prevention and sort chronic care / long term nursing (which doesn’t need to be in expensive hospitals) to free up capacity
- Pensions: break the triple lock but replace with a staged increase to a fixed percentage of the median wage. But you need to be creative - say you get 40% of the median wage (say about £10k) as a tax free payment. Then up to another £7k on a pound for pound matching from *earned* income. If you do no work you get £10k. If you earn £7k you get £7k.
- State employee pensions: time to switch to DC for everyone
- Welfare: phase out in-work benefits. It’s a subsidy to employers to pay unsustainably low wages for low return jobs
- Housing benefit. Use the governments market power effectively FFS
Just a few thoughts - the reality is you need to hit the big budgets and figure out how focus resources where needed. Cutting overseas aid, for instance, isn’t going to make a meaningful difference
But I refuse to believe that that there is no unnecessary spending in a £600bn+ budget
I believe that everything should be treated like Overseas Aid: a certain percentage of government spending goes on it. As the government income goes up or down year by year, the amount that is spent in each area changes accordingly.
And at elections, parties campaign on the percentages. "We'll spend 10% on health and only 1% on the military!" or "We'll spend 8% on education and 9% on health" etc. They can also leave a few percent for contingency, or say they will borrow a couple of percent.
It means the pain of contractions gets spread equally over departments, as do the benefits of a boom.
Makes it impossible for departments to budget on a long term basis
Since they're not very good at it anyway, I'm not sure that's a fatal objection.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
£250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house would of course be £25k, so numbers way off. £2.5k/sqm sounds very expensive.
We ended up somehere around £1.8k/sqm for an extension recently, which would give £180k for that size house, but economies of scale on a new build and particularly identikit, of course. Retail price of 2 bed new builds around here would suggest build cost well south of that.
Edit: per post below from Stocky, looks like we got a bargain!
It is £2500 / sqm , which was obviously a typo. No one ever believes me when I quote this but you can find out pretty quickly on google that it is accurate.
But that is what it now costs post Brexit and post the start of the Ukraine war with increases in cost of labour and materials. There is regional variation and labour costs are lower in the North of England which may explain the figure that you got. There are also differences between quotes for an extension and quotes for a new house. Also the quotes will depend on things like who provides the quotes, if it is done properly via a surveyor who has done a proper tender or is just an 'estimate' from a builder.
That seems to me more balanced than all that Mussolini talk. I see that Matt Goodwin thinks along similar lines. Don't expect Yellow stars, ethnic deportations, burning mosques, invasion of Libya and Ethiopia, withdrawal from Euro and EU quite yet.
"Liz is... I can't say the word..." "She's .... again, I can't say the word..."
Does Burley actually cite a name? or is this, as with almost every line of so called tory jitters being reported by the left wing press, unattributed?
"Former Tory Minister" is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Could be David Gauke, could be Dominic Grieve, could be Rishi Sunak, could even be Anna Soubry. If nobody's prepared to put their name to the comment, its utterly meaningless.
It could also be a figment of the reporter's imagination....
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
This is just not the real world in 2022. I am guessing your information is from about 8 years ago.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
Why focus on new build costs? The vast majority of homes on the market are not new builds, which in a rational market should command a premium, all things being equal.
I am dissenting from the idea that a house price crash has benefits. The end of the newbuild market would not be a 'benefit', it would be an economic disaster, and would mean that no houses get built to meet household formation and demand from migration etc. It probably won't happen because the demand will be met by landlords rich in cash taking advantage of rising rents due to undersupply. It won't help people 'get on the housing ladder', because people on low to medium incomes can't afford to buy any housing at 7% interest rates, they can't even afford to service the interest payments.
Well absolutely. This is standard stuff.
A slow, orderly deflation of prices? Sure. An actually crash? Disastrous.
I am guessing that prices will simply not rise as fast as general inflation. Those who are overstretched will be forced to sell up but there will in most parts of the market be enough demand to avoid a 'crash'.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
This is just not the real world in 2022. I am guessing your information is from about 8 years ago.
Not really, I work in the construction industry. I quote for the M & E on houses all the time. A good house basher will take a day to do all the electrics on a 2 bed house.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
This is just not the real world in 2022. I am guessing your information is from about 8 years ago.
Not really, I work in the construction industry. I quote for the M & E on houses all the time. A good house basher will take a day to do all the electrics on a 2 bed house.
Indeed, darkage's cost figure in any quotation I've seen elsewhere is an all in figure including land, surveys and all other costs, not the actual construction costs.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
This is just not the real world in 2022. I am guessing your information is from about 8 years ago.
Not really, I work in the construction industry. I quote for the M & E on houses all the time. A good house basher will take a day to do all the electrics on a 2 bed house.
Indeed, darkage's cost figure in any quotation I've seen elsewhere is an all in figure including land, surveys and all other costs, not the actual construction costs.
It may be correct if you are looking at the self build of a bespoke house, but standard build 2 bedroom houses are much cheaper to build. The guys who do them are brilliant at it. I would find it boring and repetitive but its worthwile watching a house basher one day, its amazing how quickly they do things.
I'd almost think Bailey is doing this on purpose now, he couldn't be any weaker if he tried.
Last week he lets expectations run wild that base rates will go up by 75 points, in line with the Fed, then only increases them by 50 points. Then today's a press release that the Bank would be making a statement, only to issue such a weak statement via press release that basically says "the Bank will do its job" and nothing else.
What's the point of saying you'll be making a statement, if you have no statement to actually make. Very weak.
I am not an expert in central bank statements, but that sounds kind of feeble from Bailey.
In line with his general inadequacy I'd say. Maybe even a level below normal.
The £ didn’t like that statement.
$1.068
Its like that scene in Flight where the broken jackscrew means the only think Denzel Washington's airplane can do is nosedive vertically.
Bra-fucking-vo BofE. Meanwhile Kamikaze Kwarteng says "nothing to do with me guv, we don't comment on markets" as Sterling and Gilts get hurled into the abyss.
There’s a middle aged married couple next to me having lunch. So far their conversation has consisted of noting that it is “quite breezy”, and “the chowder is nice”
AND THAT’S IT. In an hour
WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT
This is why I will die single. If I got married again I would die sooner, from boredom
Better than being always alone and reduced to eavesdropping surely.
I’ve just spent the last three days *en famille*, I am escaping and doing some flint location research in The Lizard
Tho I am happy to say my family are notably more interesting than this fucking dreadful married couple. Who have just left while exchanging the final insight: “I liked the coffee”
They are probably retired accountants from the North. They do remind me slightly of you and your wife, right down to him probably being a repressed gay but doing never doing anything about it
You talk about gays and getting the eye from them quite a bit. Ever..er..dabbled?
Once asked my best male friend to give a me a blowjob after an entire day of drinking. He havered
He spent so long havering I gave up and went up stairs in my shared house and got one of my housemates (female, architect) to give me a handjob
True story. All this was made quite tremendously awkward by the fact that I am totally not gay and I didn’t fancy my housemate either, tho she was in love with me (and I knew it). The hangover the next day was IMPERIOUS
Golly gosh. You truly do think you're all especially and unusually daring and debauched, don't you? lol
Well yeah. I am. Unless you’ve been to jail on a rape charge
I must confess, remanded in custody for suspected rape isn't on my bucket list.
The BBC is describing Brothers of Italy as "far right". The NYT is describing them as "hard right". Which is most accurate? The NYT in my opinion.
Rather than putting labels first, put actual policies and actual actions and legislation first; then decide where they fit.
From the history of the Labour party you could call them 'socialist' or even 'hard socialist'. But that would be wrong about how they are on the whole now. Same with this lot. Wait and see what they actually do. Ignore completely what they and their enemies say.
How about the "Hard Right Origins & Rhetoric but Let's See What They Actually Do Now They're In Power in Coalition with Others" BROTHERS OF ITALY party?
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
This is just not the real world in 2022. I am guessing your information is from about 8 years ago.
Not really, I work in the construction industry. I quote for the M & E on houses all the time. A good house basher will take a day to do all the electrics on a 2 bed house.
Indeed, darkage's cost figure in any quotation I've seen elsewhere is an all in figure including land, surveys and all other costs, not the actual construction costs.
It may be correct if you are looking at the self build of a bespoke house, but standard build 2 bedroom houses are much cheaper to build. The guys who do them are brilliant at it. I would find it boring and repetitive but its worthwile watching a house basher one day, its amazing how quickly they do things.
Yes, self build of a bespoke house seems to be what is getting quoted.
While estates can be a tad boring, there certainly can be economies to doing it that way.
Sterling down 1.5% after Bailey's non-statement and no action. We're run by a ship of fools.
Both statements basically say we ain't doing anything until November (and then late November). It's almost like they are challenging the markets to do their worst...
I'd almost think Bailey is doing this on purpose now, he couldn't be any weaker if he tried.
Last week he lets expectations run wild that base rates will go up by 75 points, in line with the Fed, then only increases them by 50 points. Then today's a press release that the Bank would be making a statement, only to issue such a weak statement via press release that basically says "the Bank will do its job" and nothing else.
What's the point of saying you'll be making a statement, if you have no statement to actually make. Very weak.
No respect for Bailey at all.
Well what's the point in Bailey raising interest rates if Kwartang comes back and says, "I'll raise you a 10% cut on VAT"?
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
This is just not the real world in 2022. I am guessing your information is from about 8 years ago.
there isn't a new build house on the market for less than £230k in the Leeds area according to Rightmove. In Darlington they start from £155k. 3 bedrooms in each case but not sure of the floor area.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
Why focus on new build costs? The vast majority of homes on the market are not new builds, which in a rational market should command a premium, all things being equal.
I am dissenting from the idea that a house price crash has benefits. The end of the newbuild market would not be a 'benefit', it would be an economic disaster, and would mean that no houses get built to meet household formation and demand from migration etc. It probably won't happen because the demand will be met by landlords rich in cash taking advantage of rising rents due to undersupply. It won't help people 'get on the housing ladder', because people on low to medium incomes can't afford to buy any housing at 7% interest rates, they can't even afford to service the interest payments.
A 10 to 15% negative correction over the next couple of years would be ok though.
The pain is more on mortgage costs. People not fixed and unable to meet rapidly rising monthly payments.
I'd almost think Bailey is doing this on purpose now, he couldn't be any weaker if he tried.
Last week he lets expectations run wild that base rates will go up by 75 points, in line with the Fed, then only increases them by 50 points. Then today's a press release that the Bank would be making a statement, only to issue such a weak statement via press release that basically says "the Bank will do its job" and nothing else.
What's the point of saying you'll be making a statement, if you have no statement to actually make. Very weak.
No respect for Bailey at all.
Well what's the point in Bailey raising interest rates if Kwartang comes back and says, "I'll raise you a 10% cut on VAT"?
Well they have separate jobs, don't they?
The US Dollar is appreciating strongly because the Federal Reserve have been quite aggressive on rate rises, even as the Federal Government has a deficit with numbers so eyewatering it looks like the UK is running a budget surplus in comparison.
The political reality is Truss and Kwarteng are going to have to reverse the 45p rate cut. There’s no way round that, and they might as well acknowledge it sooner rather than later. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1574425449589084161
The BBC is describing Brothers of Italy as "far right". The NYT is describing them as "hard right". Which is most accurate? The NYT in my opinion.
Rather than putting labels first, put actual policies and actual actions and legislation first; then decide where they fit.
From the history of the Labour party you could call them 'socialist' or even 'hard socialist'. But that would be wrong about how they are on the whole now. Same with this lot. Wait and see what they actually do. Ignore completely what they and their enemies say.
How about the "Hard Right Origins & Rhetoric but Let's See What They Actually Do Now They're In Power in Coalition with Others" BROTHERS OF ITALY party?
Bit of a mouthful but hey.
Good idea. It's a bit like wondering whether, in accordance with their historical roots, the next Labour government will nationalise the banks and all the other commanding heights of the nation's economy.
The government has missed its target for secondary teacher trainee numbers by 40 per cent, data released today suggests. And the number of secondary trainees accepted onto courses starting this month is 23 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. Some subjects are up to 55 per cent behind target, with particular problems in physics and computing.
Sacking Sir Tom Scholar on Day 1 wasn't terribly smart, was it?
Why?
They wanted a break with ideology of the past they didn't believe in. They need a team that believe in, or at least willing to implement, their own ideology.
The markets will just have to react and adapt. We have a freely floating exchange rate, so let it freely float.
I thought the whole point of the Civil Service was that people would deliver policy even if they didn't agree with it. Indeed, having sceptics on a team is useful, more likely to spot the pitfalls and have some solutions ready to go if it all goes to shit.
You shouldn't have to sack people to implement your democratic mandate. Advisers advise etc...Whether that mandate exists is another question.
Well yes, you shouldn't have to. Scholar should have been prepared to implement Truss and Kwarteng's ideas.
If he wasn't, then he wasn't fit to be in the Treasury, he should go into politics if he wants his own ideas instead.
Any evidence of your claim that he wasn't willing to do his job? Or are you simply assuming the worst about him in order to justify his sacking?
They need to neuter "Treasury Orthodoxy" - aka keeping at least something of a grip on the public finances - to smooth the way for their "Reforms". I imagine this is why he had to go.
Spending GBP400bn on furlough, riddled with fraud, paying people to do nothing: Perfectly logical.
Spending GBP60bn giving people their own money back: Insane gamble of the century.
Or could it be the other way around.....?
Well I don't share the majority opinion that this is an insane gamble. It's reckless, yes, but I see the political logic.
Objectively speaking the government should be running a neutral fiscal policy (in tandem with monetary tightening from the BoE) until inflation is under control. Then, with that more stable platform, go with their ideological preference for slashing tax.
But they can't wait because of the electoral timetable. With no "Charisma" Johnson, no "Scary" Corbyn, no Brexit fatigue, the urge to get "it" done, and seeking another tory term after 14 years of tory terms, they know they're bound to lose on "time for a change" if they just tick along with damage limitation and do what's sensible.
So, this. Rock in the pond. Create newness, create a BIG divide with Labour, tory tax cutters vs labour tax & spend, small state vs stale old consensus, dynamism vs back to Brown ... you know, all the shit you come out with ... try and build that narrative between now and the election.
Might work. I doubt it but it might. I think, oddly, that the chance of both a Con majority and a Lab majority is greater now than it was a week ago.
The next thing to look out for is the 'emergency spending review' where vast portions of the state are slashed.
Love to know what spending can actually be slashed - there really isn't much that can go without the impact being electorally damaging to the Tory party.
Overseas aid
The mindset that says “it’s all a bit difficult” doesn’t really help
- Health: difficult to cut spending materially (although you can save a few billion around the edges with homeopathy, tattoo removal and stuff the Mail hates). More important to reorganise to maximise the health benefit from a certain budget to limit future increases. Reorientate to prevention and sort chronic care / long term nursing (which doesn’t need to be in expensive hospitals) to free up capacity
- Pensions: break the triple lock but replace with a staged increase to a fixed percentage of the median wage. But you need to be creative - say you get 40% of the median wage (say about £10k) as a tax free payment. Then up to another £7k on a pound for pound matching from *earned* income. If you do no work you get £10k. If you earn £7k you get £7k.
- State employee pensions: time to switch to DC for everyone
- Welfare: phase out in-work benefits. It’s a subsidy to employers to pay unsustainably low wages for low return jobs
- Housing benefit. Use the governments market power effectively FFS
Just a few thoughts - the reality is you need to hit the big budgets and figure out how focus resources where needed. Cutting overseas aid, for instance, isn’t going to make a meaningful difference
But I refuse to believe that that there is no unnecessary spending in a £600bn+ budget
I believe that everything should be treated like Overseas Aid: a certain percentage of government spending goes on it. As the government income goes up or down year by year, the amount that is spent in each area changes accordingly.
And at elections, parties campaign on the percentages. "We'll spend 10% on health and only 1% on the military!" or "We'll spend 8% on education and 9% on health" etc. They can also leave a few percent for contingency, or say they will borrow a couple of percent.
It means the pain of contractions gets spread equally over departments, as do the benefits of a boom.
Makes it impossible for departments to budget on a long term basis
Neither does a system where we have budgets twice a year where the amount of money departments get change. But that's the system we have. If anything, my proposal gives them more certainty.
Parity by Friday at this rate unless the Treasury comes up with a costed plan that shows debt levels falling within two years.
It’s all a cunning money saving plan. Parity with the dollar, make UK and US currency interchangeable, saves printing new notes with KCIII’s physsog on them. Sorted.
The pound falls after Governor Andrew Bailey said the Bank of England will not hesitate to change interest rates "by as much as needed" to hit its 2% inflation target
Parity by Friday at this rate unless the Treasury comes up with a costed plan that shows debt levels falling within two years.
How the flying **** are we going to pay for the further prospective tax cuts and significant increases in defence spending if we don't further increase debt and significantly?
Now, as the quaint old notion of cutting services would appear to already have been done to death, and the idea of cutting back dead wood inefficiency is no longer believed, what is the alternative to further borrowing. It looks to me like we are in for a penny, in for a pound.
I'd almost think Bailey is doing this on purpose now, he couldn't be any weaker if he tried.
Last week he lets expectations run wild that base rates will go up by 75 points, in line with the Fed, then only increases them by 50 points. Then today's a press release that the Bank would be making a statement, only to issue such a weak statement via press release that basically says "the Bank will do its job" and nothing else.
What's the point of saying you'll be making a statement, if you have no statement to actually make. Very weak.
No respect for Bailey at all.
Well what's the point in Bailey raising interest rates if Kwartang comes back and says, "I'll raise you a 10% cut on VAT"?
Well they have separate jobs, don't they?
The US Dollar is appreciating strongly because the Federal Reserve have been quite aggressive on rate rises, even as the Federal Government has a deficit with numbers so eyewatering it looks like the UK is running a budget surplus in comparison.
Running the economy requires a partnership where both people follow roughly the same game plan.
If you look in to the 'house price crash' idea, I'm not sure anyone actually benefits. If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. And that is before land cost, planning cost, etc etc etc. A 250k house will cost £17500 per year just in mortgage interest if the rate rises to 7%. So £1458 per month. How many people can realistically afford that? The fundamental problem here is that wages are not catching up with build cost inflation, and the housing market can only function in its current form when rates are at the 2% ish mark.
£250,000 to build a house, how big a house are you talking about?
Can people read what other people have written ??
"If you look at build costs, it costs £250000 to just build a house. Thats what it costs. £250 per sqm for a 100 sqm house. "
100 sq meters is a small house, maybe 2 bedroom. It does not cost £250,000 to build such a house, especially on an estate where there are lots of very similar houses.
It's not far off a according to below;
"The average new build cost per square metre is around £2,387.50"
A 2 bedroom house on an estate of similar builds costs between £60-70,000, a one off maybe £100,000 max.
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
This is just not the real world in 2022. I am guessing your information is from about 8 years ago.
there isn't a new build house on the market for less than £230k in the Leeds area according to Rightmove. In Darlington they start from £155k. 3 bedrooms in each case but not sure of the floor area.
It's an oddity of the UK market that total floor area is never headline and often not even disclosed directly.
think i saw liam halligan say big problem in uk is our unfunded pension liabilities equivalent to 200% of gdp...so whilst govt debt to gdp at around 96% is bad but not disastrous the markets may be looking at this
The political reality is Truss and Kwarteng are going to have to reverse the 45p rate cut. There’s no way round that, and they might as well acknowledge it sooner rather than later. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1574425449589084161
what would that fix on its own? that would make it worth the U-turn?
Isn’t the big problem here that the BOE and the government are trying to do different things.
Possibly the opposite, they're both trying to do the same thing.
In the US the Government is running a major deficit, utterly dwarfing ours, but the Federal Reserve is being aggressive with its rate rises which counters the loose fiscal situation with a tighter monetary one.
In the UK we have a Government loosening its fiscal situation, while the Bank is also [relative to its peers] loosening the monetary one too.
If the Bank was tightening monetary policy at a credible rate, like the Federal Reserve is, then Sterling wouldn't be struggling as it is.
The government has missed its target for secondary teacher trainee numbers by 40 per cent, data released today suggests. And the number of secondary trainees accepted onto courses starting this month is 23 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. Some subjects are up to 55 per cent behind target, with particular problems in physics and computing.
Wait until next year, when there are no training courses.
Unless somebody has patiently explained to Ms Acland-Hood that her new policy was actually going to leave a worse mess than she made of our criminal justice system.
Parity by Friday at this rate unless the Treasury comes up with a costed plan that shows debt levels falling within two years.
How the flying **** are we going to pay for the further prospective tax cuts and significant increases in defence spending if we don't further increase debt and significantly?
Now, as the quaint old notion of cutting services would appear to already have been done to death, and the idea of cutting back dead wood inefficiency is no longer believed, what is the alternative to further borrowing. It looks to me like we are in for a penny, in for a pound.
you could announce the nhs will no longer perform critical operations past a certain age where the gain in lifespan will be less than 2 years...that should save a bit
I'd almost think Bailey is doing this on purpose now, he couldn't be any weaker if he tried.
Last week he lets expectations run wild that base rates will go up by 75 points, in line with the Fed, then only increases them by 50 points. Then today's a press release that the Bank would be making a statement, only to issue such a weak statement via press release that basically says "the Bank will do its job" and nothing else.
What's the point of saying you'll be making a statement, if you have no statement to actually make. Very weak.
No respect for Bailey at all.
Well what's the point in Bailey raising interest rates if Kwartang comes back and says, "I'll raise you a 10% cut on VAT"?
Well they have separate jobs, don't they?
The US Dollar is appreciating strongly because the Federal Reserve have been quite aggressive on rate rises, even as the Federal Government has a deficit with numbers so eyewatering it looks like the UK is running a budget surplus in comparison.
I have pointed out that what the BoE and the CoE are doing is counter intuitive.
Well they'll have to let him go, then, under the Vienna convention, even if he's killed 10 people. Methinks a complete non-story. If he's done anything naughty all the Russian authorities can do is kick him out. Any naughtiness on his part is a matter for the Japanese authorities.
Turns out the real world doesn’t behave in the way that dodgy, anonymously funded, right-wing think tanks, The Spectator and Telegraph think it should.
One suspects significant political pressure on the BoE not to announce an emergency rate rise. Them yielding to this certainly undermines their independence.
However, I suppose you could argue the bank's primary remit is inflation not the value of the pound, and the news since Friday has kind of self-cancelled in that respect. On the one hand politically induced sterling weakness which is inflationary, on the other hand a continued slump in wholesale gas and international shipping costs which is deflationary.
Parity by Friday at this rate unless the Treasury comes up with a costed plan that shows debt levels falling within two years.
How the flying **** are we going to pay for the further prospective tax cuts and significant increases in defence spending if we don't further increase debt and significantly?
Now, as the quaint old notion of cutting services would appear to already have been done to death, and the idea of cutting back dead wood inefficiency is no longer believed, what is the alternative to further borrowing. It looks to me like we are in for a penny, in for a pound.
you could announce the nhs will no longer perform critical operations past a certain age where the gain in lifespan will be less than 2 years...that should save a bit
Yes, but a Conservative Government killing the Conservative client vote won't work well politically.
Nick Macpherson @nickmacpherson2 · 5h To fire your only official with serious experience of crisis management and then precipitate a crisis a fortnight later brings postmodernism to a new level. #poundrunny
I'd almost think Bailey is doing this on purpose now, he couldn't be any weaker if he tried.
Last week he lets expectations run wild that base rates will go up by 75 points, in line with the Fed, then only increases them by 50 points. Then today's a press release that the Bank would be making a statement, only to issue such a weak statement via press release that basically says "the Bank will do its job" and nothing else.
What's the point of saying you'll be making a statement, if you have no statement to actually make. Very weak.
No respect for Bailey at all.
Well what's the point in Bailey raising interest rates if Kwartang comes back and says, "I'll raise you a 10% cut on VAT"?
Well they have separate jobs, don't they?
The US Dollar is appreciating strongly because the Federal Reserve have been quite aggressive on rate rises, even as the Federal Government has a deficit with numbers so eyewatering it looks like the UK is running a budget surplus in comparison.
I have pointed out that what the BoE and the CoE are doing is counter intuitive.
You have replied by saying "look squirrel!"
No, I'm saying if the BoE did its own job competently, then that would be good regardless of what the CoE does. Biden and Congress are spending like its going out of fashion, but the Federal Reserve are doing their job. The Bank of England are frankly asleep at the wheel.
Comments
Thats assuming he lasts long enough in role to deliver said MTFP. We have had quite a lot of Chancellors, and despite him doing Madame Swish's bidding she will undoubtedly dispose of him if the markets force it.
She'll probably replace him with Simon Clarke...
https://www.dictionary.com/e/hard-words-to-pronounce/
'mischievous'?
'murderer'?
'anemone'?
'squirrel'?
Now it's perfectly possible to move the budget back to November but at the moment it's the Autumn Statement which was always more to do about spending then tax...
As an example the electrical works will cost between 2-3K depending on the accessories. The plumbing/heating will be between £3,500-£4000 depending again on the standard of boiler etc.
Chaps who do house bashing are fantastic at doing it quickly.
But that is what it now costs post Brexit and post the start of the Ukraine war with increases in cost of labour and materials. There is regional variation and labour costs are lower in the North of England which may explain the figure that you got. There are also differences between quotes for an extension and quotes for a new house. Also the quotes will depend on things like who provides the quotes, if it is done properly via a surveyor who has done a proper tender or is just an 'estimate' from a builder.
Are markets just supposed to sit quietly and behave till all is revealed?
There is only one sword of broadcasting truth, GBNews!
"As a result of significant changes in the cost of funding, we're making some changes to our product range."
https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1574420093206929409
Liz Truss - unreliable support for whatever it is you THINK she's supporting.
Those who are overstretched will be forced to sell up but there will in most parts of the market be enough demand to avoid a 'crash'.
Shouldn't really be surprised.
$1.068
Not quite a straight quotation but near enough.
That is, will people who have already put in for a mortgage but not had the offer still be able to go forward?
If not that could cause a very sudden crisis.
He could have omitted “will not hesitate” and changed the emphasis around sustainable and medium term.
It reads like a polician’s statement.
Edit: I see the market agrees.
Should it sell.....
Last week he lets expectations run wild that base rates will go up by 75 points, in line with the Fed, then only increases them by 50 points. Then today's a press release that the Bank would be making a statement, only to issue such a weak statement via press release that basically says "the Bank will do its job" and nothing else.
What's the point of saying you'll be making a statement, if you have no statement to actually make. Very weak.
No respect for Bailey at all.
Bra-fucking-vo BofE. Meanwhile Kamikaze Kwarteng says "nothing to do with me guv, we don't comment on markets" as Sterling and Gilts get hurled into the abyss.
Ridiculous
'We don't want you to invade Abyssinia
But by Jingo, if you do
We will undoubtedly send a strong memorandum
Expressing mild disapproval of you.'
Bit of a mouthful but hey.
I guess we'll see.
While estates can be a tad boring, there certainly can be economies to doing it that way.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1574424979617226754
The pain is more on mortgage costs. People not fixed and unable to meet rapidly rising monthly payments.
The US Dollar is appreciating strongly because the Federal Reserve have been quite aggressive on rate rises, even as the Federal Government has a deficit with numbers so eyewatering it looks like the UK is running a budget surplus in comparison.
BREAKING - Russian FSB security service says it has detained Japanese Consul in Vladivostok - RIA - Reuters News
https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1574419791028396040
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1574425449589084161
You don't have to pay teachers who don't exist, do you?
https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/secondary-teacher-trainees-40-below-government-target
The government has missed its target for secondary teacher trainee numbers by 40 per cent, data released today suggests.
And the number of secondary trainees accepted onto courses starting this month is 23 per cent below pre-pandemic levels.
Some subjects are up to 55 per cent behind target, with particular problems in physics and computing.
Latest: http://trib.al/KPJvF3I https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1574426049433182210/photo/1
He’s just committed to a load of unfunded tax cuts with 0 planning
Now, as the quaint old notion of cutting services would appear to already have been done to death, and the idea of cutting back dead wood inefficiency is no longer believed, what is the alternative to further borrowing. It looks to me like we are in for a penny, in for a pound.
That just doesn't seem possible here...
Detaining foreign diplomats is... not usually a sign of strength. If they are spying, they usually get told to leave, not locked up.
I'm guessing it's a response to Japan's new embargoes, but it's still madness.
It's as though Bortnikov has lost what few marbles he ever had.
In the US the Government is running a major deficit, utterly dwarfing ours, but the Federal Reserve is being aggressive with its rate rises which counters the loose fiscal situation with a tighter monetary one.
In the UK we have a Government loosening its fiscal situation, while the Bank is also [relative to its peers] loosening the monetary one too.
If the Bank was tightening monetary policy at a credible rate, like the Federal Reserve is, then Sterling wouldn't be struggling as it is.
Meanwhile mortgage market hit directly….
https://twitter.com/brucereuters/status/1574420093206929409?s=21
Unless somebody has patiently explained to Ms Acland-Hood that her new policy was actually going to leave a worse mess than she made of our criminal justice system.
You have replied by saying "look squirrel!"
#BREAKING Denmark reports gas leak in Baltic Sea near Nord Stream 2 route: official
I thought no gas was flowing?
However, I suppose you could argue the bank's primary remit is inflation not the value of the pound, and the news since Friday has kind of self-cancelled in that respect. On the one hand politically induced sterling weakness which is inflationary, on the other hand a continued slump in wholesale gas and international shipping costs which is deflationary.
@nickmacpherson2
·
5h
To fire your only official with serious experience of crisis management and then precipitate a crisis a fortnight later brings postmodernism to a new level. #poundrunny