The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
You are really trying to make this geology thing fly aren't you?
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If she were responsible for house prices falling then she'd deserve a lot of praise indeed.
But she isn't.
She has probably accelerated it. Both in terms of speed of mortgage rate increase and damaging the governments ability to finance any props to support the market. We shall see.
🤞
If you're right, then credit to her. I hope @CorrectHorseBattery3 and everyone else who's been slamming the Tories for the housing bubble will give credit where credit's due if you're right.
To get credit she would have to be wanting to achieve the outcome, rather than stumbling on an outcome.
Yeah, who remembers the guy who was trying to find India and discovered America instead? What was his name again?
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is playing tricks on you. Over 20% of FTBs were below 25, and they didn't require above average earnings to do it. That's unthinkable for most people in today's market.
That's a different point altogether (it doesn't tell you anything about the numbers of first-time buyers), but in any case you're looking at the wrong dates; by 1995/6 things were beginning to recover. In the price crash before that, residential property transactions fell by almost half, from 1.99 million in 1988 to a low of 1.03 million in 1992, and were still at 1.047 million in 1995, recovering slowly thereafter:
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
Does it strike you as logical that there needs to be commensurate pain for every good thing to happen? I thought you weren't religious?
I think that depends on your attitude to your house. I would be very happy to see the price of my house fall. It has no value in and of itself to me because I never intend to sell. So if it was part of a larger national relevelling of house prices which allowed younger buyers to get on the market then I see that as a big win. Obviously the causes of the price fall would bother me - higher mortgage rates and a screwed economy. But the simple fact of the value of my house falling really doesn't bother me at all. It is a place to live, not an investment.
I realise that any people will be concerned because for many reasons they might have to sell - job, family size etc. But I can only give a personal view on this one.
The trouble is that a big fall in house prices combined with higher interest rates doesn't help younger buyers, quite the opposite. What happens is that the mortgage providers get nervous about affordability and negative equity, and require bigger deposits, whilst at the same time sellers don't put their houses on the market. The whole market seizes up, leaving only a few forced sellers whose properties get bought at low prices by people with cash.
Yep I see that. A sudden fall is not welcome. My point was really that the idea that people with mortgages will be unhappy to see the value of their property fall is not the whole picture. I am not unique in my outlook by any means and it would be nice if people were able (many have no choice in the matter) to see houses more as homes and less as investments. If you can adopt that outlook it does make a big difference to ones attitude to house price stagnation and also, hopefully, make one more amenable to the idea that the housing market needs to serve the younger buyer far better than it does.
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is about as accurate as the Four Yorkshiremen sketch then.
In the year 1995-96 there were 922,000 First Time Buyers, far more than there has been in any year since.
Err, 922,000 out of 1.047 million ... I don't think so. But in any case those are the wrong dates, that's when the recovery was beginning.
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is playing tricks on you. Over 20% of FTBs were below 25, and they didn't require above average earnings to do it. That's unthinkable for most people in today's market.
That's a different point altogether (it doesn't tell you anything about the numbers of first-time buyers), but in any case you're looking at the wrong dates; by 1995/6 things were beginning to recover. In the price crash before that, residential property transactions fell by almost half, from 1.99 million in 1988 to a low of 1.03 million in 1992, and were still at 1.047 million in 1995, recovering slowly thereafter:
Wait, you claimed the mid-90s wasn't a good time to be a First Time Buyer, but the statistics show that 1995 was the peak of First Time Buyers and has never been as good again since - so now you object to 1995 as a date?
Just when did you mean as mid-90s if you object to 95 and how many First Time Buyers was there in that year compared to recent years?
Your memory is false. First Time Buyers were higher in the 90s than recent years, those are the plain facts.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
The markets are twitchy, globally. Rishi’s policies were (are?) in my view recessionary, but Truss’s are depressionary.
Truss and Kwarteng do not have the confidence of the market, the public, or their own party and they must go as soon as possible. Every single day they remain in post damages UK credibility.
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is playing tricks on you. Over 20% of FTBs were below 25, and they didn't require above average earnings to do it. That's unthinkable for most people in today's market.
That's a different point altogether (it doesn't tell you anything about the numbers of first-time buyers), but in any case you're looking at the wrong dates; by 1995/6 things were beginning to recover. In the price crash before that, residential property transactions fell from 1.99 million in 1988 to a low of 1.03 million in 1992 and were still at 1.047 million in 1995, recovering slowly thereafter:
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
I think that depends on your attitude to your house. I would be very happy to see the price of my house fall. It has no value in and of itself to me because I never intend to sell. So if it was part of a larger national relevelling of house prices which allowed younger buyers to get on the market then I see that as a big win. Obviously the causes of the price fall would bother me - higher mortgage rates and a screwed economy. But the simple fact of the value of my house falling really doesn't bother me at all. It is a place to live, not an investment.
I realise that any people will be concerned because for many reasons they might have to sell - job, family size etc. But I can only give a personal view on this one.
The trouble is that a big fall in house prices combined with higher interest rates doesn't help younger buyers, quite the opposite. What happens is that the mortgage providers get nervous about affordability and negative equity, and require bigger deposits, whilst at the same time sellers don't put their houses on the market. The whole market seizes up, leaving only a few forced sellers whose properties get bought at low prices by people with cash.
Yep I see that. A sudden fall is not welcome. My point was really that the idea that people with mortgages will be unhappy to see the value of their property fall is not the whole picture. I am not unique in my outlook by any means and it would be nice if people were able (many have no choice in the matter) to see houses more as homes and less as investments. If you can adopt that outlook it does make a big difference to ones attitude to house price stagnation and also, hopefully, make one more amenable to the idea that the housing market needs to serve the younger buyer far better than it does.
I agree. but what is needed is a period of stability in nominal prices (i.e. a gradual reduction in real terms), or at most a gentle reduction in prices. It's probably not what we're going to get though; house prices tend to overshoot in both directions, and it's a strange market in many ways.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If she were responsible for house prices falling then she'd deserve a lot of praise indeed.
But she isn't.
She has probably accelerated it. Both in terms of speed of mortgage rate increase and damaging the governments ability to finance any props to support the market. We shall see.
🤞
If you're right, then credit to her. I hope @CorrectHorseBattery3 and everyone else who's been slamming the Tories for the housing bubble will give credit where credit's due if you're right.
To get credit she would have to be wanting to achieve the outcome, rather than stumbling on an outcome.
Yeah, who remembers the guy who was trying to find India and discovered America instead? What was his name again?
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is about as accurate as the Four Yorkshiremen sketch then.
In the year 1995-96 there were 922,000 First Time Buyers, far more than there has been in any year since.
Err, 922,000 out of 1.047 million ... I don't think so. But in any case those are the wrong dates, that's when the recovery was beginning.
From DCHLG report, 2015/16: The number of first time buyers has not changed in the last 10 years, but numbers are down on 20 years ago. In 2015-16, there were 654,000 first time buyer households in England. This equates to approximately 3% of all households in England and 5% of all owner occupier households. The overall number of first time buyers decreased from 922,000 households in 1995-96 to 675,000 households in 2005-06, and has remained at around that level since. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626887/First_Time_Buyers_report.pdf
If the recovery leads to numbers of first time buyers the likes of which we haven't seen in decades then great, lets have the crash and then the recovery. Especially if the recovery is so soon, mid-90s was when you were claiming things were awful but instead 1995 was when they were fantastic.
Feel free to provide some statistics to back your case up that things were bad for FTBs rather than going with your Four Yorkshiremen memory when the stats say the opposite.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
Does it strike you as logical that there needs to be commensurate pain for every good thing to happen? I thought you weren't religious?
No, that is not logical at all.
However, when you put a bunch of incompetents into govt they need to learn the hard lesson that there is a difference between their fantasies and reality.
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is about as accurate as the Four Yorkshiremen sketch then.
In the year 1995-96 there were 922,000 First Time Buyers, far more than there has been in any year since.
Err, 922,000 out of 1.047 million ... I don't think so. But in any case those are the wrong dates, that's when the recovery was beginning.
You’re wasting your time. If you don’t like Barty’s “numbers”, he has others.
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
That's the problem. Politics is always prone to the "I want this thing to happen, so it must happen" scenario. Largely because people are prone to that.
But the UK has been super-prone to it since the mid 2010s, when we all got bored of austerity.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
That's the problem. Politics is always prone to the "I want this thing to happen, so it must happen" scenario. Largely because people are prone to that.
But the UK has been super-prone to it since the mid 2010s, when we all got bored of austerity.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
What about "Pushing you off the cliff into a valley full of razor blades while shrieking with maniacal laughter"?
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
And the markets hit her over the head with a different kind of poker
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If she were responsible for house prices falling then she'd deserve a lot of praise indeed.
But she isn't.
She has probably accelerated it. Both in terms of speed of mortgage rate increase and damaging the governments ability to finance any props to support the market. We shall see.
🤞
If you're right, then credit to her. I hope @CorrectHorseBattery3 and everyone else who's been slamming the Tories for the housing bubble will give credit where credit's due if you're right.
To get credit she would have to be wanting to achieve the outcome, rather than stumbling on an outcome.
Yeah, who remembers the guy who was trying to find India and discovered America instead? What was his name again?
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
Possibly, but more gradually. It's not a myth really. The mortgage lenders rushed to change their offers precipitously as a direct response to the market's response to the special financial operation, unless I'm mistaken, over a period of a few days rather than gradually.
The most interesting counterfactual is if the BoE had raised interest rates by 0.75% last time instead of trying the gradual approach. That might have brought forward some of the panic over rising rates and Kwarteng would have had chance to change his mini-budget before he delivered it.
The problem with critiques of the Bank is that it implies we need a replacement for the existing governor. And who would trust the current shower of **** to appoint one ?
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
40 new hospitals?? Liz wouldn’t even commit to repairing the one nearest her constituency that is falling down and had something like 2000 separate water leaks
Now be fair there aren't that many water leaks. It is just that the roof is falling down and has over 2,400 props holding it up in those parts that have not been abandoned as too dangerous to still use.
Apparently there's one close to the constituency of our esteemed Health Secretary that isn't in much better shape.
Aside from the government fiscal shambles, tomorrow we'll see a new UK-centred clusterfk: Andrew Bailey, BoE governor essentially issued an ultimatum to markets this week by saying the Bank will stop buying bonds tomorrow.
Either the Bank does what he said and stops, in which case gilts go back into freefall. Or it doesn't, in which case sterling dives as the Bank's last remaining inflation-fighting credibility goes up in smoke.
This seems like a masterclass in how not to do central banking.
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is about as accurate as the Four Yorkshiremen sketch then.
In the year 1995-96 there were 922,000 First Time Buyers, far more than there has been in any year since.
Err, 922,000 out of 1.047 million ... I don't think so. But in any case those are the wrong dates, that's when the recovery was beginning.
You’re wasting your time. If you don’t like Barty’s “numbers”, he has others.
I got the numbers from a Gov.uk DCHLG report.
If you have alternative numbers, feel free to show them. Gov.uk ought to be a reliable source. 🤨
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
One caveat, though: a simple comparison of house prices with average earnings, going back to the 1970s, is not very informative, partly because of the (by our recent standards) huge interest rates then, and partly because of changes in the jobs market, especially more women working and working in higher-paid jobs. If you go back further than the 1970s, it was nearly always one salary that was paying the mortgage, now it's usually two, and in the 1990 mortgage providers tended to heavily discount the earnings of the second earner (usually the woman) in calculating their maximum loan value. The change in those factors must end up increasing the ratio of house prices to average individual earnings. even in the absence of any other factors.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
Yep, but that was obvious right from the start and it is amazing that she didn't see it coming.
Part of politics is knowing when to get on/off the stage so you can take credit/ avoid blame for big things that would have happened anyway. Call it luck or cunning, it has the same effect.
But even though the economy has been heading for the rocks anyway for a while, that doesn't excuse Team KT making it worse.
She should have done what Rishi was doing in the early stages of the leadership contest: being honest with people and making clear that there were no free lunches. If she'd prepared the ground, and as you say avoided making things worse, she wouldn't have taken anything like as much flak.
But Conservative Party members, addicted to being told porkies by Boris and Vote Leave, wanted to continue with the fantasy cakeism. Many of them still do.
And had Truss done the right thing and told the truth, someone else would have taken up the "Politicians are stopping you being rich and it's so easy to change that" banner and won with it.
I dunno. Maybe 1 - 1.5% growth is what Western economies can do for the next few decades. That's still doubling over a lifetime. Lots of other questions become harder for sure, but not everything is a conspiracy.
The demographic transition is expensive. How could it not be?
In many respects some of our previous growth was a mirage, a ponzi scheme created by unsustainable population growth.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I mean, I feel like “bet”, whilst I get the allusion, somehow doesn’t hit on the craziness of the problem. If I thought Truss was being so rational as to simply gamble on this, I’d think she was merely reckless.
As it is I think it was pure delusion. She thought she had solved this mega complicated problem and all she needed to do was cut all these taxes and the markets would applaud her genius.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Well, I’m not sure.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
One caveat, though: a simple comparison of house prices with average earnings, going back to the 1970s, is not very informative, partly because of the (by our recent standards) huge interest rates then, and partly because of changes in the jobs market, especially more women working and working in higher-paid jobs. If you go back further than the 1970s, it was nearly always one salary that was paying the mortgage, now it's usually two, and in the 1990 mortgage providers tended to heavily discount the earnings of the second earner (usually the woman) in calculating their maximum loan value. The change in those factors must end up increasing the ratio of house prices to average individual earnings. even in the absence of any other factors.
That households were able to afford a house on just one income in the past, but can't on two in the present, doesn't exactly help your case that housing isn't overvalued.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
Aside from the government fiscal shambles, tomorrow we'll see a new UK-centred clusterfk: Andrew Bailey, BoE governor essentially issued an ultimatum to markets this week by saying the Bank will stop buying bonds tomorrow.
Either the Bank does what he said and stops, in which case gilts go back into freefall. Or it doesn't, in which case sterling dives as the Bank's last remaining inflation-fighting credibility goes up in smoke.
This seems like a masterclass in how not to do central banking.
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
One caveat, though: a simple comparison of house prices with average earnings, going back to the 1970s, is not very informative, partly because of the (by our recent standards) huge interest rates then, and partly because of changes in the jobs market, especially more women working and working in higher-paid jobs. If you go back further than the 1970s, it was nearly always one salary that was paying the mortgage, now it's usually two, and in the 1990 mortgage providers tended to heavily discount the earnings of the second earner (usually the woman) in calculating their maximum loan value. The change in those factors must end up increasing the ratio of house prices to average individual earnings. even in the absence of any other factors.
IIRC 1985-95, it was 3 x the larger salary plus 1 x the smaller salary of the couple. So yes, salarty two was heavily discounted for loan calculations.
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
It's absolutely not irrelevant.
You started out by saying that a fall in prices doesn't help younger buyers. I countered by saying that was a very short-term perspective. If someone has to wait a couple of years before they're in a position to benefit, that's much better than waiting a couple of decades.
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
I heard he thinks the same about you.
I am a big shit - 6.1 last time I checked.
Which units of measurement are you using?
Disappointed you need to ask.
Kilograms? Pounds? Quintals?
This is LuckyStooge. So, isotopes, I’d wager.
The decimal presentation does mean it can't be one of those Imperial systems worked out by people from the more rural areas with 6, 7 or even 8 fingers on each hand. Could be pounds and (round) shillings but without a pricing guide ...
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
This is karma working in quite a spectacular way.
It really is. Even down to the detail of people like Mogg whining that it "Started in America".
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Well, I’m not sure.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
You think there was an explanation that would have made sense of this crazy mess, but they refused to give it out of sheer cussedness?
I don't believe it. I think that is a ridiculous idea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it was just sheer craziness that was bound to end in disaster.
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is about as accurate as the Four Yorkshiremen sketch then.
In the year 1995-96 there were 922,000 First Time Buyers, far more than there has been in any year since.
Bart, just evading my probation officer to point you to para 2 of the introduction to your report
This report focuses on recent first time buyers, defined here as households who have purchased a property that is their main home in the last three years and have not previously owned a property.
So your 922000 ftb households is 3 years worth, so about 307000 a year.
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
It's absolutely not irrelevant.
You started out by saying that a fall in prices doesn't help younger buyers. I countered by saying that was a very short-term perspective. If someone has to wait a couple of years before they're in a position to benefit, that's much better than waiting a couple of decades.
A couple of years indeed.
Prices fell in 1992 and 1995 saw FTB at record levels and Mr Nabavi is complaining that 1995 is in recovery, when they fell in Autumn 1992.
So if prices fall this year, and we see record levels of FTB activity again in 2025, then great. Sucks for those who bought at the peak of the bubble, but shit happens.
Given the pain being caused to the real economy by the financial turbulence, it’s not clear why it is in anyone’s interests to wait 18 more days before the inevitable u-turn on the mini budget https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1580553190881497088
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
Your memory is about as accurate as the Four Yorkshiremen sketch then.
In the year 1995-96 there were 922,000 First Time Buyers, far more than there has been in any year since.
Bart, just evading my probation officer to point you to para 2 of the introduction to your report
This report focuses on recent first time buyers, defined here as households who have purchased a property that is their main home in the last three years and have not previously owned a property.
So your 922000 ftb households is 3 years worth, so about 307000 a year.
That just further proves my point and demolishes Mr Nabavi's then, doesn't it?
1995 data then covers 1993, 1994 and 1995 and shows FTB activity 50% higher than what has been achieved in recent years. Despite the fact that the fall in house prices occurred in 1992.
So no, the fact 1995 was "recovery" wasn't the killer point he thought it was, the plain simple fact is following the housing fall in 1992 the three years to 1995 saw massively more First Time Buyers than ever since, not fewer.
So any memories that the mid-90s were terrible is pure Four Yorkshiremen.
I think the likelihood is that we'll get the screeching U-turn, perhaps with a side dish of Kwarteng's head, but it won't satisfy the markets and the volatility will continue. That's because, as @DavidHenigUK has just tweeted:
"it isn't specifically a u-turn the markets are looking for, but some sign of leadership from the Prime Minister and senior Ministers - that they know what is happening and can plot a vaguely sane plan to get out of the mess."
It's hard to see from here how the current government, or even a reshuffled version of the current government, can get a grip of events again and regain market trust.
The destruction of market confidence will be hard to repair.
It's notable that Osborne also cut the additional rate of tax and corporation tax. The difference being he retained the confidence of the markets, because the OBR said he'd balance the books (eventually).
I think any British government for the next several years will now have problems with market trust. Any month where public borrowing is higher than forecast will make people nervous. We'd need a good few years of repairing our reputation in practice to regain trust in our word.
Does anyone else miss the halcyon days of the Long Term Economic Plan?
Just grateful I lived through the end of boom and bust.
Although bust...bust...bust was not quite what I had been sold.....
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Well, I’m not sure.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
You think there was an explanation that would have made sense of this crazy mess, but they refused to give it out of sheer cussedness?
I don't believe it. I think that is a ridiculous idea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it was just sheer craziness that was bound to end in disaster.
In theory, Truss/Kwarteng could have advanced a more modest (or meantested) energy bung, and less egregious* tax cuts, along with an acknowledgement that fiscal drag will effectively pay for the gap over time.
*The tax cuts did not seem optimised for “growth” and were politically nutty besides.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I mean, I feel like “bet”, whilst I get the allusion, somehow doesn’t hit on the craziness of the problem. If I thought Truss was being so rational as to simply gamble on this, I’d think she was merely reckless.
As it is I think it was pure delusion. She thought she had solved this mega complicated problem and all she needed to do was cut all these taxes and the markets would applaud her genius.
It is a bit pound-shop Maggie without even an attempt at the homework.
I presume the civil service will rescue the government to some degree, although no doubt they're nursing some very recent grudges.
It has been the quiet period in Italy between election and the houses first sitting, but things will move into the next week through the formalities and any not so formalities of setting up the new government.
So, there are presiding officers to elect for both houses, whose first tasks will then be to advise the President on who to call as PM (payout point on that market), and then the submission and approval of a cabinet.
A bit of petty intrigue today, La Russa, one of FdI's founders will be presiding officer of the Senate, but with quorum met by a slightly mysterious coalition, govern that much of Forza abstained. Cue much finger pointing between Left and Centre. But, tis done, and the Camera continues to decide.
But the main speculation is around whether Salvini will return to the home / interior portfolio. Seemed to be a drifting possibility a week or two back but back on the cards now. Does Meloni need to give a loser such a high profile?
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Well, I’m not sure.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
You think there was an explanation that would have made sense of this crazy mess, but they refused to give it out of sheer cussedness?
I don't believe it. I think that is a ridiculous idea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it was just sheer craziness that was bound to end in disaster.
In theory, Truss/Kwarteng could have advanced a more modest (or meantested) energy bung, and less egregious* tax cuts, along with an acknowledgement that fiscal drag will effectively pay for the gap over time.
*The tax cuts did not seem optimised for “growth” and we’re politically nutty besides.
The corporation tax cut was geared to growth. The 45% needed further explanation.
I think the likelihood is that we'll get the screeching U-turn, perhaps with a side dish of Kwarteng's head, but it won't satisfy the markets and the volatility will continue. That's because, as @DavidHenigUK has just tweeted:
"it isn't specifically a u-turn the markets are looking for, but some sign of leadership from the Prime Minister and senior Ministers - that they know what is happening and can plot a vaguely sane plan to get out of the mess."
It's hard to see from here how the current government, or even a reshuffled version of the current government, can get a grip of events again and regain market trust.
The destruction of market confidence will be hard to repair.
It's notable that Osborne also cut the additional rate of tax and corporation tax. The difference being he retained the confidence of the markets, because the OBR said he'd balance the books (eventually).
I think any British government for the next several years will now have problems with market trust. Any month where public borrowing is higher than forecast will make people nervous. We'd need a good few years of repairing our reputation in practice to regain trust in our word.
Does anyone else miss the halcyon days of the Long Term Economic Plan?
Just grateful I lived through the end of boom and bust.
Although bust...bust...bust was not quite what I had been sold.....
You repeatedly voted for it, so I presume you’re quite content.
Its worth noting too that the population in the mid-90s was ten million fewer than it is today.
So the mid-90s saw like-for-like (since its a 3 year period either way) 50% more FTBs per annum than recent years have, despite the fact that the population then was ten million fewer than it is today.
So no, it wasn't a terrible time to be a first time buyer.
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
From DCHLG report, 2015/16: The number of first time buyers has not changed in the last 10 years, but numbers are down on 20 years ago. In 2015-16, there were 654,000 first time buyer households in England. This equates to approximately 3% of all households in England and 5% of all owner occupier households. The overall number of first time buyers decreased from 922,000 households in 1995-96 to 675,000 households in 2005-06, and has remained at around that level since. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626887/First_Time_Buyers_report.pdf
If the recovery leads to numbers of first time buyers the likes of which we haven't seen in decades then great, lets have the crash and then the recovery. Especially if the recovery is so soon, mid-90s was when you were claiming things were awful but instead 1995 was when they were fantastic.
Feel free to provide some statistics to back your case up that things were bad for FTBs rather than going with your Four Yorkshiremen memory when the stats say the opposite.
I think your figures are for first-time buyer households, not transactions. But you've completely missed the point. We were talking about the effect of rapid drops in house prices. The rapid drop occurred from 1989 (avg price £61,495) to 1992 (£50,168, not adjusted for inflation). That was the period I was referring to. Prices then stabilised in nominal terms, although real-term prices were still falling, until 1995/1996 when the recovery began. Transaction numbers remained low during all this time.
Of course it's got tougher for first-time buyers since then, when on earth have I ever implied otherwise? That doesn't mean that a SUDDEN drop in prices is going to be helpful to them, quite the opposite in fact - especially if they are recent buyers who bought near the peak. They will be the worst affected of all. Oldies who've paid off their mortgages won't be affected at all by the nominal fall in the price of an asset they don't need to sell.
This really is a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.
The only chink of light in all this is that so many mortgages are at fixed rates, which will dampen the impact of interest rate rises.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I mean, I feel like “bet”, whilst I get the allusion, somehow doesn’t hit on the craziness of the problem. If I thought Truss was being so rational as to simply gamble on this, I’d think she was merely reckless.
As it is I think it was pure delusion. She thought she had solved this mega complicated problem and all she needed to do was cut all these taxes and the markets would applaud her genius.
It is a bit pound-shop Maggie without even an attempt at the homework.
I presume the civil service will rescue the government to some degree, although no doubt they're nursing some very recent grudges.
Civil servants with a grudge? Like me, 10% inflation and no pay rise this year? Perish the thought.
I think the likelihood is that we'll get the screeching U-turn, perhaps with a side dish of Kwarteng's head, but it won't satisfy the markets and the volatility will continue. That's because, as @DavidHenigUK has just tweeted:
"it isn't specifically a u-turn the markets are looking for, but some sign of leadership from the Prime Minister and senior Ministers - that they know what is happening and can plot a vaguely sane plan to get out of the mess."
It's hard to see from here how the current government, or even a reshuffled version of the current government, can get a grip of events again and regain market trust.
The destruction of market confidence will be hard to repair.
It's notable that Osborne also cut the additional rate of tax and corporation tax. The difference being he retained the confidence of the markets, because the OBR said he'd balance the books (eventually).
I think any British government for the next several years will now have problems with market trust. Any month where public borrowing is higher than forecast will make people nervous. We'd need a good few years of repairing our reputation in practice to regain trust in our word.
Does anyone else miss the halcyon days of the Long Term Economic Plan?
Just grateful I lived through the end of boom and bust.
Although bust...bust...bust was not quite what I had been sold.....
You repeatedly voted for it, so I presume you’re quite content.
From DCHLG report, 2015/16: The number of first time buyers has not changed in the last 10 years, but numbers are down on 20 years ago. In 2015-16, there were 654,000 first time buyer households in England. This equates to approximately 3% of all households in England and 5% of all owner occupier households. The overall number of first time buyers decreased from 922,000 households in 1995-96 to 675,000 households in 2005-06, and has remained at around that level since. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626887/First_Time_Buyers_report.pdf
If the recovery leads to numbers of first time buyers the likes of which we haven't seen in decades then great, lets have the crash and then the recovery. Especially if the recovery is so soon, mid-90s was when you were claiming things were awful but instead 1995 was when they were fantastic.
Feel free to provide some statistics to back your case up that things were bad for FTBs rather than going with your Four Yorkshiremen memory when the stats say the opposite.
I think your figures are for first-time buyer households, not transactions. But you've completely missed the point. We were talking about the effect of rapid drops in house prices. The rapid drop occurred from 1989 (avg price £61,495) to 1992 (£50,168, not adjusted for inflation). That was the period I was referring to. Prices then stabilised in nominal terms, although real-term prices were still falling, until 1995/1996 when the recovery began. Transaction numbers remained low during all this time.
Of course it's got tougher for first-time buyers since then, when on earth have I ever implied otherwise? That doesn't mean that a SUDDEN drop in prices is going to be helpful to them, quite the opposite in fact - especially if they are recent buyers who bought near the peak. They will be the worst affected of all. Oldies who've paid off their mortgages won't be affected at all by the nominal fall in the price of an asset they don't need to sell.
This really is a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.
The only chink of light in all this is that so many mortgages are at fixed rates, which will dampen the impact of interest rate rises.
So within a space of 5 years (less since the 1995 data dates back 3 years to 1995, so from 1993) FTBs were having a great time.
That's a fantastically quick turnaround.
Better than saying wait decades until people die so you can get an inheritance and get on the ladder.
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
It's absolutely not irrelevant.
You started out by saying that a fall in prices doesn't help younger buyers. I countered by saying that was a very short-term perspective. If someone has to wait a couple of years before they're in a position to benefit, that's much better than waiting a couple of decades.
Well, if you count five years as very short-term, yes, I agree with you, except of course for those caught in the immediate fallout of negative equity in the meantime.
It won’t be Boris. There’s going to be enough residual opposition to Boris to deny him a coronation. And the only way there can be a leadership change is through a coronation. It cannot go to the members.
For the same reason it won’t be Rishi - too much residual distaste from the die hard Boris fans.
At this stage I can’t really see past Penny, but on the understanding she is leading a cabinet drawn from all wings of the Party and pledging to get as much of the 2019 manifesto done as possible before the next GE. Even then the last contest suggested she had some enemies, but suspect they could be persuaded that needs must, given she doesn’t have the baggage with the public.
May and Gove were the other options in my head. But I’m not sure the Tories could get past the slightly comical notion of all lining up behind Theresa May again (and Theresa May running an election campaign….). Gove is also one with a lot of enemies. Both, however, would be good candidates for senior roles in a unity cabinet.
The urgent need is to stop market panic. That means Rishi at Number 10 or 11.
To be honest I had assumed Rishi would come back as COE in any “unity” cabinet. I think PM is a stretch (though if he calms the markets he could be setting it up for a run at LOTO next time).
I'm quite upset that he's clearly had no lucrative job offers from any tech multi-nationals. Perhaps their standards are higher than the average Tory MP.
How do you know?
I can't think of any other reason why the little shit is still in the country.
I heard he thinks the same about you.
I am a big shit - 6.1 last time I checked.
Which units of measurement are you using?
Disappointed you need to ask.
Kilograms? Pounds? Quintals?
This is LuckyStooge. So, isotopes, I’d wager.
The decimal presentation does mean it can't be one of those Imperial systems worked out by people from the more rural areas with 6, 7 or even 8 fingers on each hand. Could be pounds and (round) shillings but without a pricing guide ...
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
One caveat, though: a simple comparison of house prices with average earnings, going back to the 1970s, is not very informative, partly because of the (by our recent standards) huge interest rates then, and partly because of changes in the jobs market, especially more women working and working in higher-paid jobs. If you go back further than the 1970s, it was nearly always one salary that was paying the mortgage, now it's usually two, and in the 1990 mortgage providers tended to heavily discount the earnings of the second earner (usually the woman) in calculating their maximum loan value. The change in those factors must end up increasing the ratio of house prices to average individual earnings. even in the absence of any other factors.
That households were able to afford a house on just one income in the past, but can't on two in the present, doesn't exactly help your case that housing isn't overvalued.
Eh? When did I ever say housing wasn't overvalued?
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
This is key. Need the killer line. They gambled with your mortgage?
In a market that has a normal cycle, someone can afford to wait a few years without it having a dramatic impact on major life decisions. In a perma-bubble, they don't have this option (unless they're an outlier in some way) and are effectively coerced into taking on unaffordable levels of debt.
True, but irrelevant to the point we were discussing.
It's absolutely not irrelevant.
You started out by saying that a fall in prices doesn't help younger buyers. I countered by saying that was a very short-term perspective. If someone has to wait a couple of years before they're in a position to benefit, that's much better than waiting a couple of decades.
Well, if you count five years as very short-term, yes, I agree with you, except of course for those caught in the immediate fallout of negative equity in the meantime.
Actually in only 1 year of the 1990s were FTB mortgages "low" and that was "low" relative to then, it was higher than its been in recent years.
Those caught in negative equity are unfortunate but buyer beware, anyone who buys in a bubble can face that, but it helps to ensure housing is affordable rather than the bubble getting worse.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
If growth at sufficient levels is impossible, then by definition the system is broken.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
This is key. Need the killer line. They gambled with your mortgage?
I’ll come back to it again - house prices are high because people were willing to pay those prices. They don’t want to rent. There is a lack of supply vs demand.
I strongly expect we will see a reduction in house prices in the next 12 months, perhaps a correction of 10% or so from peak. But I would bet that they will have stabilised after that, and in a few years time they’ll be back to current levels. The fundamentals of the housing market rule out a significant reduction, until such point as there is more supply, and that is not going to be the case for a very long time (if ever).
The trajectory for the medium-long term will be upward, as has been the case for so long now.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Well, I’m not sure.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
You think there was an explanation that would have made sense of this crazy mess, but they refused to give it out of sheer cussedness?
I don't believe it. I think that is a ridiculous idea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it was just sheer craziness that was bound to end in disaster.
In theory, Truss/Kwarteng could have advanced a more modest (or meantested) energy bung, and less egregious* tax cuts, along with an acknowledgement that fiscal drag will effectively pay for the gap over time.
*The tax cuts did not seem optimised for “growth” and we’re politically nutty besides.
The corporation tax cut was geared to growth. The 45% needed further explanation.
No it wasn’t - so ‘let’s explain why it doesn’t wash for the 10th time.
Over the last 12 years we have had low corporation tax rates alongside low levels of investment resulting in low levels of growth.
So the idea that low corporation tax rates would somehow generate the higher investment needed to create actual growth has 12 years of evidence that it simply doesn’t work.
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
Given the pain being caused to the real economy by the financial turbulence, it’s not clear why it is in anyone’s interests to wait 18 more days before the inevitable u-turn on the mini budget https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1580553190881497088
They're the "Diane Abbott/Michael Portillo" on Andrew Neil's relaunched This Week-alike on CH4. Caught it for the 1st time the other day. Not sure it works. Seemed a bit stale and Neil isn't quite the interviewer he was.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
This is key. Need the killer line. They gambled with your mortgage?
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
This is key. Need the killer line. They gambled with your mortgage?
Appealing to the property-owning classes. Not a good Lab attack line.
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
The origin of our current malaise was the Brexit referendum. Charitably, it was a risky bet on a radical shift in our long-established and reasonably successful economic and geopolitical model and the bet has been lost. What we are seeing now is government by sunk-cost fallacy.
I’ll come back to it again - house prices are high because people were willing to pay those prices. They don’t want to rent. There is a lack of supply vs demand.
I strongly expect we will see a reduction in house prices in the next 12 months, perhaps a correction of 10% or so from peak. But I would bet that they will have stabilised after that, and in a few years time they’ll be back to current levels. The fundamentals of the housing market rule out a significant correction, until such point as there is more supply, and that is not going to be the case for a very long time (if ever).
Um house prices are high because landlords can borrow more than home buyers so were willing (when interest rates were low) to pay more than others to add rental properties to their investments.
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
That's true - take Pochdale Rioneers and his conversion to the dead cause of remainerism.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
This is key. Need the killer line. They gambled with your mortgage?
They bet your house?
They put your house AND pension on a dog with distemper at Romford.
I’m not entirely sure what the difference is between a second new PM in a Parliament and the first as far as a mandate is concerned - if you’re worried about the lack of mandate from another PM, surely you should be as equally worried about the lack of mandate during the first change.
A “Unity” PM coming in to deliver on the 2019 manifesto will have much more of a mandate, conversely, than Liz Truss whose sole purpose seems to be to rip it up.
The mandate of a new PM part way through a Parliament is surely "don't do bat-shit crazy stuff". When they do, isn't it incumbent on the party to replace them with somebody who actually DOESN'T do bat-shit crazy stuff?
The stupidity of the '22 to not allow a VONC for 12 months is a licence to do bat-shit crazy, unchained...
Sorry to bring it all back to "that" subject but the same complete loons who thought Brexit was a good idea are now running the country. That is what happens when you put complete loons in government and in charge of countries.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
That's true - take Pochdale Rioneers and his conversion to the dead cause of remainerism.
There is no such thing as remainerism. There is wanting to make the best of a bad job-ism. But the problem is that your complete loons think this is a good job so there is no one vaguely sane around to try to make the best of it.
Jimmy Carr with a flamethrower, threatening to destroy works of art bought (when you consider TV show funding mechanism) using tax payers money, whilst audience shout Higher! Lower! or something. 🤮 Ian Katz, from the Gaurdiun, now Channel 4’s director of programming - who wants to destroy Art works just for attention seeking and ratings - What a Twat. Must be put in jail in my opinion.
Obviously I don’t wish to prejudice a fair trial and due judicial process etc etc, but he must end up in jail after it.
an “utterly sick piece of entertainment television”.
Okay maybe not sack or jail Lefty Ian Katztastrophe, I over reacted.
Instead, how about a new show, where executives who mess up to this magnitude get put in stocks and fed the PB favourite deep fried tarantula. The thorax will haunt him forever 😈
Appealing to the property-owning classes. Not a good Lab attack line.
Isn't it the property-owning classes (and those aspiring to join the property-owning classes) whom Labour needs to win over from the Tories?
Yes good point but unlike the sainted Tony I haven't noticed them make any particular appeals to such a demographic which suggests to me that the likes of our Jess and Ange are still fighting the class war.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If it breaks while you're holding it you will get the blame, regardless of your degree of culpability, as Gordon Brown learned. But Truss's actions have undoubtedly made things worse (the unanimous view of dispassionate market participants) and worse than that she has no plan to deal with any of it.
What we need is a phrase to nail this one that's as politically effective as those Tory Story ones about Brown - "maxing out the nation's credit card" and "not fixing the roof while the sun was shining".
I'll work on this and revert.
Truss bet the house on a game of poker with the financial markets.
I don't understanding the gambling analogy.
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Well, I’m not sure.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
You think there was an explanation that would have made sense of this crazy mess, but they refused to give it out of sheer cussedness?
I don't believe it. I think that is a ridiculous idea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it was just sheer craziness that was bound to end in disaster.
In theory, Truss/Kwarteng could have advanced a more modest (or meantested) energy bung, and less egregious* tax cuts, along with an acknowledgement that fiscal drag will effectively pay for the gap over time.
*The tax cuts did not seem optimised for “growth” and we’re politically nutty besides.
The corporation tax cut was geared to growth. The 45% needed further explanation.
No it wasn’t - so ‘let’s explain why it doesn’t wash for the 10th time.
Over the last 12 years we have had low corporation tax rates alongside low levels of investment resulting in low levels of growth.
So the idea that low corporation tax rates would somehow generate the higher investment needed to create actual growth has 12 years of evidence that it simply doesn’t work.
But it's really your reasoning that doesn't wash. You present no evidence or even a workable theory as to why higher corporation tax levels would result in higher levels of inward investment, or be inward investment neutral. It's a very unlikely proposition, given that countries like the Republic of Ireland seem to have benefitted from their low levels, and countries like Bermuda and Belize with still lower levels have benefitted even more. It seems more probable to me that low(er) corporation tax was indeed beneficial to inward investment levels in Britain, but that that other factors (such as frequent tax/regulation changes) worked the opposite way. So far from helping, raising corporation tax would be like taking an ill person and kicking away their crutches. Do you have a strong argument against this surmise?
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
“I believe you have a funny story to tell us Kwasi. Is it true you were Chancellor of the Exchequer for about a month?”
Look what you could have won! Is Liz or Kwasi the non- dart player ? (always thought it was a bit of an insult to have the official title of non- dart player !)
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
You're right about that. Quite long periods of the economy going nowhere (eg 1920-36) were a feature of the pre-1945 world.
🏠NEW🏠 Interesting stats from @richard_donnell at Zoopla - Housing market demand down 20%-plus in past weeks. 15% fewer sales. - Sellers cutting asking prices. - Every region of GB affected. Now seeing first compelling signs of mini-budget/interest rate impact on housing market https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580567934250123264/photo/1
It's fascinating to see a myth be created in real time. Truss will forever be held responsible for interest rates going up and for house prices falling, but this was going to happen whatever she did.
If she were responsible for house prices falling then she'd deserve a lot of praise indeed.
But she isn't.
She has probably accelerated it. Both in terms of speed of mortgage rate increase and damaging the governments ability to finance any props to support the market. We shall see.
🤞
If you're right, then credit to her. I hope @CorrectHorseBattery3 and everyone else who's been slamming the Tories for the housing bubble will give credit where credit's due if you're right.
To get credit she would have to be wanting to achieve the outcome, rather than stumbling on an outcome.
Yeah, who remembers the guy who was trying to find India and discovered America instead? What was his name again?
The bloke who never actually reached America and saw his “discovery” named after a Florentine pirate? That one?
Jimmy Carr with a flamethrower, threatening to destroy works of art bought (when you consider TV show funding mechanism) using tax payers money, whilst audience shout Higher! Lower! or something. 🤮 Ian Katz, from the Gaurdiun, now Channel 4’s director of programming - who wants to destroy Art works just for attention seeking and ratings - What a Twat. Must be put in jail in my opinion.
Obviously I don’t wish to prejudice a fair trial and due judicial process etc etc, but he must end up in jail after it.
an “utterly sick piece of entertainment television”.
Okay maybe not sack or jail Lefty Ian Katztastrophe, I over reacted.
Instead, how about a new show, where executives who mess up to this magnitude get put in stocks and fed the PB favourite deep fried tarantula. The thorax will haunt him forever 😈
Comments
https://www.ukhousingreview.org.uk/ukhr1011/updates/pdf/11-039ab.pdf
But where is the plan?
Just when did you mean as mid-90s if you object to 95 and how many First Time Buyers was there in that year compared to recent years?
Your memory is false. First Time Buyers were higher in the 90s than recent years, those are the plain facts.
I'll work on this and revert.
Rishi’s policies were (are?) in my view recessionary, but Truss’s are depressionary.
Truss and Kwarteng do not have the confidence of the market, the public, or their own party and they must go as soon as possible. Every single day they remain in post damages UK credibility.
The number of first time buyers has not changed in the last 10 years, but
numbers are down on 20 years ago.
In 2015-16, there were 654,000 first time buyer households in England. This
equates to approximately 3% of all households in England and 5% of all owner
occupier households.
The overall number of first time buyers decreased from 922,000 households in
1995-96 to 675,000 households in 2005-06, and has remained at around that
level since.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626887/First_Time_Buyers_report.pdf
If the recovery leads to numbers of first time buyers the likes of which we haven't seen in decades then great, lets have the crash and then the recovery. Especially if the recovery is so soon, mid-90s was when you were claiming things were awful but instead 1995 was when they were fantastic.
Feel free to provide some statistics to back your case up that things were bad for FTBs rather than going with your Four Yorkshiremen memory when the stats say the opposite.
However, when you put a bunch of incompetents into govt they need to learn the hard lesson that there is a difference between their fantasies and reality.
If you don’t like Barty’s “numbers”, he has others.
But the UK has been super-prone to it since the mid 2010s, when we all got bored of austerity.
And who would trust the current shower of **** to appoint one ?
She did something that was bound to end catastrophically no matter what the markets did.
Apparently there's one close to the constituency of our esteemed Health Secretary that isn't in much better shape.
Either the Bank does what he said and stops, in which case gilts go back into freefall.
Or it doesn't, in which case sterling dives as the Bank's last remaining inflation-fighting credibility goes up in smoke.
This seems like a masterclass in how not to do central banking.
Am I wrong?
https://twitter.com/CitySamuel/status/1580585810533187584
If you have alternative numbers, feel free to show them. Gov.uk ought to be a reliable source. 🤨
One caveat, though: a simple comparison of house prices with average earnings, going back to the 1970s, is not very informative, partly because of the (by our recent standards) huge interest rates then, and partly because of changes in the jobs market, especially more women working and working in higher-paid jobs. If you go back further than the 1970s, it was nearly always one salary that was paying the mortgage, now it's usually two, and in the 1990 mortgage providers tended to heavily discount the earnings of the second earner (usually the woman) in calculating their maximum loan value. The change in those factors must end up increasing the ratio of house prices to average individual earnings. even in the absence of any other factors.
In many respects some of our previous growth was a mirage, a ponzi scheme created by unsustainable population growth.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
As it is I think it was pure delusion. She thought she had solved this mega complicated problem and all she needed to do was cut all these taxes and the markets would applaud her genius.
The core idea (reduce taxes, paid for by increased deficit) is not in itself bad, so long as a convincing explanation can be provided on how the resultant deficit will be closed in time.
Liz’s problem was a mad scorn that any explanation was necessary at all, with tax cuts for the very richest like a dog turd on top.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
You started out by saying that a fall in prices doesn't help younger buyers. I countered by saying that was a very short-term perspective. If someone has to wait a couple of years before they're in a position to benefit, that's much better than waiting a couple of decades.
I don't believe it. I think that is a ridiculous idea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it was just sheer craziness that was bound to end in disaster.
Clothes shopping is an ordeal.
This report focuses on recent first time buyers, defined here as households who
have purchased a property that is their main home in the last three years and
have not previously owned a property.
So your 922000 ftb households is 3 years worth, so about 307000 a year.
Prices fell in 1992 and 1995 saw FTB at record levels and Mr Nabavi is complaining that 1995 is in recovery, when they fell in Autumn 1992.
So if prices fall this year, and we see record levels of FTB activity again in 2025, then great. Sucks for those who bought at the peak of the bubble, but shit happens.
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1580553190881497088
I agree with George..
https://twitter.com/edballs/status/1580555632729419777
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
1995 data then covers 1993, 1994 and 1995 and shows FTB activity 50% higher than what has been achieved in recent years. Despite the fact that the fall in house prices occurred in 1992.
So no, the fact 1995 was "recovery" wasn't the killer point he thought it was, the plain simple fact is following the housing fall in 1992 the three years to 1995 saw massively more First Time Buyers than ever since, not fewer.
So any memories that the mid-90s were terrible is pure Four Yorkshiremen.
Although bust...bust...bust was not quite what I had been sold.....
*The tax cuts did not seem optimised for “growth” and were politically nutty besides.
I presume the civil service will rescue the government to some degree, although no doubt they're nursing some very recent grudges.
So, there are presiding officers to elect for both houses, whose first tasks will then be to advise the President on who to call as PM (payout point on that market), and then the submission and approval of a cabinet.
A bit of petty intrigue today, La Russa, one of FdI's founders will be presiding officer of the Senate, but with quorum met by a slightly mysterious coalition, govern that much of Forza abstained. Cue much finger pointing between Left and Centre. But, tis done, and the Camera continues to decide.
But the main speculation is around whether Salvini will return to the home / interior portfolio. Seemed to be a drifting possibility a week or two back but back on the cards now. Does Meloni need to give a loser such a high profile?
So the mid-90s saw like-for-like (since its a 3 year period either way) 50% more FTBs per annum than recent years have, despite the fact that the population then was ten million fewer than it is today.
So no, it wasn't a terrible time to be a first time buyer.
Of course it's got tougher for first-time buyers since then, when on earth have I ever implied otherwise? That doesn't mean that a SUDDEN drop in prices is going to be helpful to them, quite the opposite in fact - especially if they are recent buyers who bought near the peak. They will be the worst affected of all. Oldies who've paid off their mortgages won't be affected at all by the nominal fall in the price of an asset they don't need to sell.
This really is a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.
The only chink of light in all this is that so many mortgages are at fixed rates, which will dampen the impact of interest rate rises.
That's a fantastically quick turnaround.
Better than saying wait decades until people die so you can get an inheritance and get on the ladder.
They gambled with your mortgage?
See Chart 2: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/housingandhomeownershipintheuk/2015-01-22
Those caught in negative equity are unfortunate but buyer beware, anyone who buys in a bubble can face that, but it helps to ensure housing is affordable rather than the bubble getting worse.
Prime Minister - Mr Peter Bone
Chancellor - John Redwood
Home Secretary - Suella Braverman
No, this can't be right. That last one's ridiculous
I strongly expect we will see a reduction in house prices in the next 12 months, perhaps a correction of 10% or so from peak. But I would bet that they will have stabilised after that, and in a few years time they’ll be back to current levels. The fundamentals of the housing market rule out a significant reduction, until such point as there is more supply, and that is not going to be the case for a very long time (if ever).
The trajectory for the medium-long term will be upward, as has been the case for so long now.
Over the last 12 years we have had low corporation tax rates alongside low levels of investment resulting in low levels of growth.
So the idea that low corporation tax rates would somehow generate the higher investment needed to create actual growth has 12 years of evidence that it simply doesn’t work.
They were wrong about Brexit and they are wrong about government and yet there will be people on here who ascribe to them some kind of super-savant ability to have had a moment of clarity on Subject A while reverting to type on Subjects B-Z.
And yes Truss was a Remainer. But so was May and there is nothing like the zeal of a convert to a dead cause.
https://twitter.com/ProfBrianCox/status/1580343794095955969
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1580259735114219539
The stupidity of the '22 to not allow a VONC for 12 months is a licence to do bat-shit crazy, unchained...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/oct/13/channel-4-art-trouble-jimmy-carr-destroy-works-hitler-picasso-backlash
Okay maybe not sack or jail Lefty Ian Katztastrophe, I over reacted.
Instead, how about a new show, where executives who mess up to this magnitude get put in stocks and fed the PB favourite deep fried tarantula. The thorax will haunt him forever 😈
Liz Truss Approval Rating (13 Oct.):
2019 Conservative voters
Disapprove: 58% (+11)
Approve: 21% (-4)
Net: -37% (-15)
Changes +/- 9 Oct. https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1580594543019163654/photo/1