I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
UK Geometric mean rental (Includes notional rents of OO housing) value as part of the basket.
It's a big calculation but it'd probably spit out something like 800 quid. Maybe 900.
The government (ONS?) does already calculate average private rents for the Local Housing Allowance rates of course.
Already done then. Is this in fact included in CPI-H perhaps already. Maybe that's what we should be using.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Question: how good a match are Sunak and Hunt for each other? If Sunak had won first time round, who would his chancellor have been and how would that person differ to Hunt?
The USSR was essentially a Russian empire. When that empire collapsed, Russia lost a massive amount of its internal prestige and pride; Only its nuclear capabilities keep it as a world power, with a pre-war economy smaller than Canada's (and which will be smaller now).
Too many people in Russia - or at least the power brokers in the cities - want Russia to be a power once again. They could have done that the hard way, by using their many advantages - e.g. material and human resources; its massive industrial base - to become a power over he last two decades. Instead, they did the easy thing, stole and wasted those advantages.
But all that stolen loot, stolen talent and stolen time has not brought them the position they desire in the world. Instead of a might colossus, they are a mighty joke. This war is a toddler's stop - but sadly, a toddler with nuclear weapons.
TL;DR: Russia is butt-burt.
Russia's total exports - despite it being one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the world - are basically the same as Belgium's.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
I asked for someone who has a better idea of what to do. Sir Keir and Reeves, so far as we can tell from public pronouncements, decidedly do not qualify.
I'm shocked, stunned I tell you, that you feel that way.
If they announced some policies, it would help me not feel that way.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
If you don't own a house, then what equity have you gained when the price you need to pay goes up? 🤦♂️
The notion that the only people that matter are homeowners is a very perverted one. You wouldn't say the only people that matter are toilet paper hoarders who don't need to buy toilet paper anymore, so why exclude people who have to pay the cost but don't gain from equity from the calculations?
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
That's not how it's calculated. Housing cost is calculated as an owner occupier and rental equivalent, so with low interest rates the index is low, with high interest rates it's high. It doesn't properly take into account rising asset values because there's not necessarily an ongoing cost to someone who owns the asset.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
Every day's a school day and today's lesson is about failing to independently verify Barty's data. The failed policy in question is mythical.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
Objectively @Big_G_NorthWales is right. Sunak has been Chancellor during one of the most difficult periods in peacetime, and Hunt is a massively experienced government minister. I think Starmer and Reeves are very respectable, particularly compared with a lot of the lightweights on both sides of the house, and in particular their own side, but neither has any experience of actual government
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Question: how good a match are Sunak and Hunt for each other? If Sunak had won first time round, who would his chancellor have been and how would that person differ to Hunt?
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
Every day's a school day and today's lesson is about failing to independently verify Barty's data. The failed policy in question is mythical.
If the policies haven't failed, why is everything fucked?
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
Every day's a school day and today's lesson is about failing to independently verify Barty's data. The failed policy in question is mythical.
If the policies haven't failed, why is everything fucked?
Because of the failed policies of the last 12 years.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
If you don't own a house, then what equity have you gained when the price you need to pay goes up? 🤦♂️
The notion that the only people that matter are homeowners is a very perverted one. You wouldn't say the only people that matter are toilet paper hoarders who don't need to buy toilet paper anymore, so why exclude people who have to pay the cost but don't gain from equity from the calculations?
You seem to be typing away at random and continually referencing "toilet paper".
What I'm offering to the Blog is my way of looking at housing costs for an owner. The rent equivalent.
This being - the interest cost of the mortgage plus the interest foregone on the equity tied up in the house.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
Every day's a school day and today's lesson is about failing to independently verify Barty's data. The failed policy in question is mythical.
If the policies haven't failed, why is everything fucked?
Because of the failed policies of the last 12 years.
If you mean the failed policy consensus of the last 20 years, I agree.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Question: how good a match are Sunak and Hunt for each other? If Sunak had won first time round, who would his chancellor have been and how would that person differ to Hunt?
Raab or Barclay?
Hmm, maybe we should be grateful for the reign of Truss then!
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
LOL
If Starmer and Reeves have any better ideas, they seem very reticent about sharing them.
Windfall tax is their stock answer to the COL but that will be part of Sunak/ Hunt Autumn statement so they will need to go back to the drawing board and let it not be forgotten it was Sunak who introduced the windfall tax which is contributing to the existing £400 energy rebate and other measures about to be paid including enhanced winter fuel allowance next month
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
Its not Brownaphobic abuse to point out the Gordon Brown change the inflation measure to exclude most households single largest cost from the measurement, at a time when that cost was rapidly rising (and has continued to rise) which has led to inflation being falsely portrayed as lower than it is for the past two decades.
If the Bank hadn't had their mandate changed to the dodgy and unrepresentative CPI data then they're have had to deal with inflation more often than they have. But that didn't suit Chancellors from Brown onwards.
When many households are paying a thousand pounds a month or more for their home, and that price has gone up dramatically for two decades now, to pretend there was no inflation in that cost or the costs that any households have to pay is a dishonest lie pure and simple. The fact not all households pay for an item is not a reason for that item to be excluded from inflation figures.
If you don't want to be an "enabler" of calling out that, then don't try to get the last word in.
"An explicit inflation target was first set in October 1992 by Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont, following the UK's departure from the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Initially, the target was based on the RPIX, which is the RPI calculated excluding mortgage interest payments."
RPIX still includes housing depreciation, so housing costs were still included, even if not perfectly. It also includes Council Tax, insurance, ground rent and transaction costs etc whereas CPI simply excludes it altogether, which is far worse.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
Objectively @Big_G_NorthWales is right. Sunak has been Chancellor during one of the most difficult periods in peacetime, and Hunt is a massively experienced government minister. I think Starmer and Reeves are very respectable, particularly compared with a lot of the lightweights on both sides of the house, and in particular their own side, but neither has any experience of actual government
If that were true, there would never be a change of government.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
That's not how it's calculated. Housing cost is calculated as an owner occupier and rental equivalent, so with low interest rates the index is low, with high interest rates it's high. It doesn't properly take into account rising asset values because there's not necessarily an ongoing cost to someone who owns the asset.
So the rental equivalent takes no account of the amount of equity?
The Russian withdrawal from Kherson looks a bit too easy for Ukraine. Hmm
What about it do you think was easy? It’s been many months of slow grind, squeezing the Russian logistics chain bit by bit. Not just ammo dumps and c&c but the repeated blowing of bridges, pontoons and ferries across the Dnipro and of course the attack on the Kerch strait.
Also of note is that in the last 7 days Ukraine are claiming close to 5,000 kills. Given where this has been happening (Bahkmut and Donestsk) and the claimed loss of 100 Russian tanks too (an offensive weapon), we should conclude the very high numbers are Russia trying to force an offensive. It feels very similar to the battle of SeveroDonetsk in the summer. Rope a dope. Punish them heavily for extremely limited territorial gain of any strategic significance. And then strike back thereafter.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
LOL
If Starmer and Reeves have any better ideas, they seem very reticent about sharing them.
Windfall tax is their stock answer to the COL but that will be part of Sunak/ Hunt Autumn statement so they will need to go back to the drawing board and let it not be forgotten it was Sunak who introduced the windfall tax which is contributing to the existing £400 energy rebate and other measures about to be paid including enhanced winter fuel allowance next month
One of the strategies will be to steal every idea Labour comes up with to fully neutralise, which is essentially what Blair did to the Tories. There will be very little to choose from by the GE which I shall be quite happy with. Anyone who thinks Labour will be able to go on a spending splurge will be kidding themselves. They will find a note saying "there is no money left"
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
The discussion changed from voting intention to leadership team comparisons?
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
I did not say they were useless I said it will take time for them to show the trend even upto Spring 24 but it does seem Sunak is recognised as leading on the economy even by focus groups
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
Objectively @Big_G_NorthWales is right. Sunak has been Chancellor during one of the most difficult periods in peacetime, and Hunt is a massively experienced government minister. I think Starmer and Reeves are very respectable, particularly compared with a lot of the lightweights on both sides of the house, and in particular their own side, but neither has any experience of actual government
If that were true, there would never be a change of government.
Indeed, but the point was to whether S &R are a match for S &H. Objectively they are not. Doesn't mean to say the electorate won't put them in govt tho.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
Its not Brownaphobic abuse to point out the Gordon Brown change the inflation measure to exclude most households single largest cost from the measurement, at a time when that cost was rapidly rising (and has continued to rise) which has led to inflation being falsely portrayed as lower than it is for the past two decades.
If the Bank hadn't had their mandate changed to the dodgy and unrepresentative CPI data then they're have had to deal with inflation more often than they have. But that didn't suit Chancellors from Brown onwards.
When many households are paying a thousand pounds a month or more for their home, and that price has gone up dramatically for two decades now, to pretend there was no inflation in that cost or the costs that any households have to pay is a dishonest lie pure and simple. The fact not all households pay for an item is not a reason for that item to be excluded from inflation figures.
If you don't want to be an "enabler" of calling out that, then don't try to get the last word in.
"An explicit inflation target was first set in October 1992 by Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont, following the UK's departure from the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Initially, the target was based on the RPIX, which is the RPI calculated excluding mortgage interest payments."
RPIX still includes housing depreciation, so housing costs were still included, even if not perfectly. It also includes Council Tax, insurance, ground rent and transaction costs etc whereas CPI simply excludes it altogether, which is far worse.
None of those things captures hpi, and a good thing too. Unless you want indexed pensions and student loan repayments to increase in step with house prices.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
I did not say they were useless I said it will take time for them to show the trend even upto Spring 24 but it does seem Sunak is recognised as leading on the economy even by focus groups
As Lord Melchett once said "You twist and turn like a ... twisty-turny thing."
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
LOL
If Starmer and Reeves have any better ideas, they seem very reticent about sharing them.
Windfall tax is their stock answer to the COL but that will be part of Sunak/ Hunt Autumn statement so they will need to go back to the drawing board and let it not be forgotten it was Sunak who introduced the windfall tax which is contributing to the existing £400 energy rebate and other measures about to be paid including enhanced winter fuel allowance next month
In a discussion about the relative merits of Sunak/Hunt and Starmer/Reeves, this seems to be quite a leap.
Reeves and Labour proposed a windfall tax. Sunak ruled it out, and then when he introduced it, it was described as a u-turn everywhere from the Telegraph to the Guardian, via the Express, the FT and so on.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
Its not Brownaphobic abuse to point out the Gordon Brown change the inflation measure to exclude most households single largest cost from the measurement, at a time when that cost was rapidly rising (and has continued to rise) which has led to inflation being falsely portrayed as lower than it is for the past two decades.
If the Bank hadn't had their mandate changed to the dodgy and unrepresentative CPI data then they're have had to deal with inflation more often than they have. But that didn't suit Chancellors from Brown onwards.
When many households are paying a thousand pounds a month or more for their home, and that price has gone up dramatically for two decades now, to pretend there was no inflation in that cost or the costs that any households have to pay is a dishonest lie pure and simple. The fact not all households pay for an item is not a reason for that item to be excluded from inflation figures.
If you don't want to be an "enabler" of calling out that, then don't try to get the last word in.
"An explicit inflation target was first set in October 1992 by Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont, following the UK's departure from the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Initially, the target was based on the RPIX, which is the RPI calculated excluding mortgage interest payments."
RPIX still includes housing depreciation, so housing costs were still included, even if not perfectly. It also includes Council Tax, insurance, ground rent and transaction costs etc whereas CPI simply excludes it altogether, which is far worse.
None of those things captures hpi, and a good thing too. Unless you want indexed pensions and student loan repayments to increase in step with house prices.
Depreciation is a good statistical proxy for HPI, better than nothing.
As for it being a good thing, personally I have said "student loans" [read: graduate tax] should be abolished as part of having just a single rate of tax paid for equitably by everyone on the same income, regardless of age or how they earn their income.
But yes, if inflation goes up then that should factor into anything that's index linked. Excluding inflation because it might affect index linked costs is purely fraudulent, break index-linking if you don't want to increase whatever is indexed by inflation.
However if the Government becomes concerned that inflation will increase their costs due to index linking, perhaps they might take inflation more seriously, rather than falsely pretending it doesn't exist simply because a small portion of the population can evade it.
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
I did not say they were useless I said it will take time for them to show the trend even upto Spring 24 but it does seem Sunak is recognised as leading on the economy even by focus groups
The Russian withdrawal from Kherson looks a bit too easy for Ukraine. Hmm
In six months time you'll be saying that about their withdrawal from Sevastopol.
Truly the most catastrophic self-inflicted blunder by a so-called "major power" in many decades.
It is really hard to see what logic was applied when the decision to invade was made.
The logic was that now was their best chance, a window of opportunity that would soon close. The US had demonstrated with the fall of Kabul a lack of resolve.
I think it really could have worked. Had they succeeded in capturing Zelenskyy, or if he had run in the way Afghanistan's President fled, then central organisation of resistance would have been much weaker.
And it's not so outrageous a prediction for them to have made. Western intelligence expected the same outcome, and thought Ukrainians would now be fighting a guerrilla war.
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
I did not say they were useless I said it will take time for them to show the trend even upto Spring 24 but it does seem Sunak is recognised as leading on the economy even by focus groups
As Lord Melchett once said "You twist and turn like a ... twisty-turny thing."
You seem to be having difficulty in accepting Sunak is respected on the economy but that does not mean come 24 Labour will not form a government but the extent of that mandate is likely to be mitigated by sound economic management
Someone should tell the twat her 15 minutes was up a long time ago. She reeks of 2015.
There's a very coherent case to be made that imperialism and slavery leads to industrial revolutions lead to climate crises. Not to mention the conclusions to be drawn about the opponents of the opponents of racism.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Its a focus group of Con to Lab switchers interviewed a day after he took over, they would obviously feel that. The test would be reinterviewing them after 6 months
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
The cost of living’s rising fast (and Gordon Brown’s to blame) The Tories gonna blame the past (so Gordie gets the blame) My Nan can’t pay her leccie bill (and Gordie’s still to blame) Twelve wasted years of Tory shill (yet Gordie’s still to blame)
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
I did not say they were useless I said it will take time for them to show the trend even upto Spring 24 but it does seem Sunak is recognised as leading on the economy even by focus groups
As Lord Melchett once said "You twist and turn like a ... twisty-turny thing."
You seem to be having difficulty in accepting Sunak is respected on the economy but that does not mean come 24 Labour will not form a government but the extent of that mandate is likely to be mitigated by sound economic management
I just think you are very selective in what you choose to quote and dismiss and change your mind a lot. Currently, you appear to be in a "I love Rishi" moment. It's sweet.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
Objectively @Big_G_NorthWales is right. Sunak has been Chancellor during one of the most difficult periods in peacetime, and Hunt is a massively experienced government minister. I think Starmer and Reeves are very respectable, particularly compared with a lot of the lightweights on both sides of the house, and in particular their own side, but neither has any experience of actual government
If that were true, there would never be a change of government.
Indeed, but the point was to whether S &R are a match for S &H. Objectively they are not. Doesn't mean to say the electorate won't put them in govt tho.
Starmer was more than a match for Sunak at PMQs this week.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
That's not how it's calculated. Housing cost is calculated as an owner occupier and rental equivalent, so with low interest rates the index is low, with high interest rates it's high. It doesn't properly take into account rising asset values because there's not necessarily an ongoing cost to someone who owns the asset.
So the rental equivalent takes no account of the amount of equity?
There are several established techniques for incorporating the costs of owner occupied housing into inflation measures (rents are already included but as this is PB nobody gives a fuck about renters except for middle class millenials who can't afford to buy anywhere nice).
This nice paper summarises them.
(The UK's CPIH measure follows the rental equivalence approach).
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
The cost of living’s rising fast (and Gordon Brown’s to blame) The Tories gonna blame the past (so Gordie gets the blame) My Nan can’t pay her leccie bill (and Gordie’s still to blame) Twelve wasted years of Tory shill (yet Gordie’s still to blame)
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Gordon Brown famously inherited a "golden economy legacy", and the paradigm of trying to eliminate the business cycle and propping up asset bubbles undoubtedly goes back to him.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
Objectively @Big_G_NorthWales is right. Sunak has been Chancellor during one of the most difficult periods in peacetime, and Hunt is a massively experienced government minister. I think Starmer and Reeves are very respectable, particularly compared with a lot of the lightweights on both sides of the house, and in particular their own side, but neither has any experience of actual government
If that were true, there would never be a change of government.
Indeed, but the point was to whether S &R are a match for S &H. Objectively they are not. Doesn't mean to say the electorate won't put them in govt tho.
On what objective measurement are S&R not a match for S&H? Might you not be letting your personal politics undermine your "objective" views on Starmer.
Sunak could grow into his role, but I subjectively felt that Starmer did very well at both of the last two PMQs and that subjective measurement was matched by many others thinking the same.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
No, but "real change" is most simply translated as "not a Tory government".
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
But you can't have hpi feeding into your main inflation measure, because what if it gets out of control? The secondary effect will be that the BoE feebly tries to rein it in, the primary one will be feed through to all those indexed final salary pensions that Barty is so unhappy about. So you pension goes up, and your il gilts, precisely because your house price does. Huzzah.
Including housing in inflation numbers, might actually encourage people to want to do something about
Damn right they’re not happy. That merger would basically let one company own the vast majority of the printing presses.
It will drive up the cost of books, reduce the earnings of authors and, worse, much worse, so much indescribably worse I can't bear to think about it, cut the fees of freelance editors.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
No, but "real change" is most simply translated as "not a Tory government".
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
Yup, 'I'm not the other guy' has always been a good ticket.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
No, but "real change" is most simply translated as "not a Tory government".
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
Hmm. Isn't that a bit EnglandistheUKist?
Edit: which makes political decisions at the next election(s) interesting, of course.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
That's not how it's calculated. Housing cost is calculated as an owner occupier and rental equivalent, so with low interest rates the index is low, with high interest rates it's high. It doesn't properly take into account rising asset values because there's not necessarily an ongoing cost to someone who owns the asset.
So the rental equivalent takes no account of the amount of equity?
There are several established techniques for incorporating the costs of owner occupied housing into inflation measures (rents are already included but as this is PB nobody gives a fuck about renters except for middle class millenials who can't afford to buy anywhere nice).
This nice paper summarises them.
(The UK's CPIH measure follows the rental equivalence approach).
Private Rents are arguably not weighted to the level they should be, but its not simply "renters" and "owner occupiers" that exist. To switch from being a renter to an owner occupier requires paying for the house price, and that makes the cost paid a cost and not equity that they have gained.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
That's not how it's calculated. Housing cost is calculated as an owner occupier and rental equivalent, so with low interest rates the index is low, with high interest rates it's high. It doesn't properly take into account rising asset values because there's not necessarily an ongoing cost to someone who owns the asset.
So the rental equivalent takes no account of the amount of equity?
There are several established techniques for incorporating the costs of owner occupied housing into inflation measures (rents are already included but as this is PB nobody gives a fuck about renters except for middle class millenials who can't afford to buy anywhere nice).
This nice paper summarises them.
(The UK's CPIH measure follows the rental equivalence approach).
Thanks. Just read the summary and, yes, I believe that's more or less how I personally look at it. Forgetting about breaking it into 'equity' plus 'mortgage' elements your cost as an owner is in essence what your place would rent for. And since rent = price x yield this means capital values are in the mix.
RCP have a record of being a little more likely to label something as a "tossup" in seats than others however their record is fantastic when they do call either Lean, Likely or Safe. In the last 5 sets of Us House elections they have only made 10 incorrect calls combined if they do indicate a preference. Including of year where every call was correct.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
No, but "real change" is most simply translated as "not a Tory government".
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
Which might be good enough for Labour to win the next election, but if that's as far as it goes then it won't be long before they run into deep trouble.
The Russian withdrawal from Kherson looks a bit too easy for Ukraine. Hmm
In six months time you'll be saying that about their withdrawal from Sevastopol.
Truly the most catastrophic self-inflicted blunder by a so-called "major power" in many decades.
Except that Zelensky himself is suspicious
“Zelensky: "I don't see them running away from Kherson. This is an information attack. I can't divulge everything. This is an operation to make us go there, to make us pull forces from other dangerous fronts there. They are not ready to leave Kherson."”
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Gordon Brown famously inherited a "golden economy legacy", and the paradigm of trying to eliminate the business cycle and propping up asset bubbles undoubtedly goes back to him.
Where famously = mythically. As you (subconsciously?) acknowledge with your aptly used inverted commas there.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
No, but "real change" is most simply translated as "not a Tory government".
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
Hmm. Isn't that a bit EnglandistheUKist?
Edit: which makes political decisions at the next election(s) interesting, of course.
Who you want in No 10 isn't really the main determinant in Scotland for who you vote for in Scotland (aside from perhaps some SLAB-SCON unionist swing voters).
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
No, but "real change" is most simply translated as "not a Tory government".
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
Hmm. Isn't that a bit EnglandistheUKist?
Edit: which makes political decisions at the next election(s) interesting, of course.
Who you want in No 10 isn't really the main determinant in Scotland for who you vote for in Scotland (aside from perhaps some SLAB-SCON unionist swing voters).
That's an astounding assertion given the unpopularity of the last Conservative PM in Scotland, and the linked crash in the Conservative vote. Even the SNP vote can be interpreted as "**** the Tories AND Labour".
RCP have a record of being a little more likely to label something as a "tossup" in seats than others however their record is fantastic when they do call either Lean, Likely or Safe. In the last 5 sets of Us House elections they have only made 10 incorrect calls combined if they do indicate a preference. Including of year where every call was correct.
This is noteworthy as currently RCP is predicting
174 Democrat 228 Republican 33 Toss Ups
This would make 240+ a very high chance indeed
It's increasingly looking like a Republican blowout in the mid-terms.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
In areas like "inflation" (pretend it doesn't exist by excluding it where it does) etc absolutely Osborne was continuity Brown and I've criticised him for that.
It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
But you can't have hpi feeding into your main inflation measure, because what if it gets out of control? The secondary effect will be that the BoE feebly tries to rein it in, the primary one will be feed through to all those indexed final salary pensions that Barty is so unhappy about. So you pension goes up, and your il gilts, precisely because your house price does. Huzzah.
Because it might give the government some incentive to legislate for considerable extra housebuilding?
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
But you can't have hpi feeding into your main inflation measure, because what if it gets out of control? The secondary effect will be that the BoE feebly tries to rein it in, the primary one will be feed through to all those indexed final salary pensions that Barty is so unhappy about. So you pension goes up, and your il gilts, precisely because your house price does. Huzzah.
Including housing in inflation numbers, might actually encourage people to want to do something about
Damn right they’re not happy. That merger would basically let one company own the vast majority of the printing presses.
It will drive up the cost of books, reduce the earnings of authors and, worse, much worse, so much indescribably worse I can't bear to think about it, cut the fees of freelance editors.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
Where was the discontinuity between Darling and Osborne?
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
That's not how it's calculated. Housing cost is calculated as an owner occupier and rental equivalent, so with low interest rates the index is low, with high interest rates it's high. It doesn't properly take into account rising asset values because there's not necessarily an ongoing cost to someone who owns the asset.
So the rental equivalent takes no account of the amount of equity?
There are several established techniques for incorporating the costs of owner occupied housing into inflation measures (rents are already included but as this is PB nobody gives a fuck about renters except for middle class millenials who can't afford to buy anywhere nice).
This nice paper summarises them.
(The UK's CPIH measure follows the rental equivalence approach).
Private Rents are arguably not weighted to the level they should be, but its not simply "renters" and "owner occupiers" that exist. To switch from being a renter to an owner occupier requires paying for the house price, and that makes the cost paid a cost and not equity that they have gained.
It is both. If I buy a house for £300k with a £250k mortgage then I have a new asset worth £300k, a reduction in my liquid assets of £50k and an increase in my financial liabilities of £250k. My net worth is unchanged. I have incurred a cost and gained equity in the house. If the house cost £350k it doesn't really alter things. The cost of owning the house comes from the interest payments, insurance, maintenance costs etc. Not from the principal payments, which are a financial transaction. Conceptually there is an implicit rent payment in there too. But housing is an asset and asset prices don't belong in a measure of goods and services inflation. I agree central banks should pay attention to it. But just shoehorning it into the CPI isn't the right way to go about it.
1992-7 only 100x worse with the economy and living standards tanking, going the opposite way from the Major years.
The next GE result will be cataclysmic for the tories.
Starmer is no Blair and Labour are no where near as strong as New Labour was running up to 1997.
Conservatives will lose the nect election of course but Labour will only get a small majority. The next election will be 1974 not 1997 IMO.
Lets hope that weirdo Andrew Bridgen MP is finished!
BUT. One difference between the challenge of Blair and that of Starmer.
In 1997 there was no truly successful, competent Labour government in living memory. The last Callaghan government had ended at the IMF, the last of reign of Wilson was more than 2 decades ago and his heyday was 3 decades ago. So Blair faced a major credibility gap which he had to work hard, and successfully, to close.
Blair and Brown were more recent and although the financial crisis was a blot on the end of Brown's rule both he and Blair are still remembered as competent administrators who didn't immediately plunge the country into a sterling or debt crisis. Blair's biggest black mark was Iraq. So I think it's easier for potential Labour voters now to imagine a Blair-style government with decent economic growth and improving public services.
I am no fan of Callaghan , but his Government did not 'end at the IMF'. The IMF was called in late 1976 - based on inaccurate data which when subsequently revised implied there had actually been no need to resort to it after all. His Government also bequeathed a lower RPI inflation rate to Thatcher in May 1979 than we face today.
What about Clement Atlees 1945 governments achievements, at a time when the country was on its knees
The achievements built on huge amounts of financial aid from the USA?
To paraphrase Claire Short, I suppose they want golden elephants.
My God. You'd think there would be a point when politicians would stop going on about how safe and comfortable migrants are when they're literally giving them diphtheria in a camp. https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1587163725043273728
1992-7 only 100x worse with the economy and living standards tanking, going the opposite way from the Major years.
The next GE result will be cataclysmic for the tories.
Starmer is no Blair and Labour are no where near as strong as New Labour was running up to 1997.
Conservatives will lose the nect election of course but Labour will only get a small majority. The next election will be 1974 not 1997 IMO.
Lets hope that weirdo Andrew Bridgen MP is finished!
BUT. One difference between the challenge of Blair and that of Starmer.
In 1997 there was no truly successful, competent Labour government in living memory. The last Callaghan government had ended at the IMF, the last of reign of Wilson was more than 2 decades ago and his heyday was 3 decades ago. So Blair faced a major credibility gap which he had to work hard, and successfully, to close.
Blair and Brown were more recent and although the financial crisis was a blot on the end of Brown's rule both he and Blair are still remembered as competent administrators who didn't immediately plunge the country into a sterling or debt crisis. Blair's biggest black mark was Iraq. So I think it's easier for potential Labour voters now to imagine a Blair-style government with decent economic growth and improving public services.
I am no fan of Callaghan , but his Government did not 'end at the IMF'. The IMF was called in late 1976 - based on inaccurate data which when subsequently revised implied there had actually been no need to resort to it after all. His Government also bequeathed a lower RPI inflation rate to Thatcher in May 1979 than we face today.
What about Clement Atlees 1945 governments achievements, at a time when the country was on its knees
The achievements built on huge amounts of financial aid from the USA?
We were spending 25% of GDP on the armed forces by the war's end, so there was obvious scope for savings.
But you said that polls were useless until the Spring. Something doesn't add up. What changed? I can't quite put my finger on it. What on Earth could it be.
I did not say they were useless I said it will take time for them to show the trend even upto Spring 24 but it does seem Sunak is recognised as leading on the economy even by focus groups
He did give us lots of free (no strings attached) money for 18 months. I daresay if I had been that benevolent I would be popular too.
To paraphrase Claire Short, I suppose they want golden elephants.
My God. You'd think there would be a point when politicians would stop going on about how safe and comfortable migrants are when they're literally giving them diphtheria in a camp. https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1587163725043273728
1992-7 only 100x worse with the economy and living standards tanking, going the opposite way from the Major years.
The next GE result will be cataclysmic for the tories.
Starmer is no Blair and Labour are no where near as strong as New Labour was running up to 1997.
Conservatives will lose the nect election of course but Labour will only get a small majority. The next election will be 1974 not 1997 IMO.
Lets hope that weirdo Andrew Bridgen MP is finished!
BUT. One difference between the challenge of Blair and that of Starmer.
In 1997 there was no truly successful, competent Labour government in living memory. The last Callaghan government had ended at the IMF, the last of reign of Wilson was more than 2 decades ago and his heyday was 3 decades ago. So Blair faced a major credibility gap which he had to work hard, and successfully, to close.
Blair and Brown were more recent and although the financial crisis was a blot on the end of Brown's rule both he and Blair are still remembered as competent administrators who didn't immediately plunge the country into a sterling or debt crisis. Blair's biggest black mark was Iraq. So I think it's easier for potential Labour voters now to imagine a Blair-style government with decent economic growth and improving public services.
I am no fan of Callaghan , but his Government did not 'end at the IMF'. The IMF was called in late 1976 - based on inaccurate data which when subsequently revised implied there had actually been no need to resort to it after all. His Government also bequeathed a lower RPI inflation rate to Thatcher in May 1979 than we face today.
What about Clement Atlees 1945 governments achievements, at a time when the country was on its knees
The achievements built on huge amounts of financial aid from the USA?
We were spending 25% of GDP on the armed forces by the war's end, so there was obvious scope for savings.
So? It was still the $7 billion in Marshall Aid, just under 50% of which was an outright gift, that was crucial. Even if the conditions did help cause the sterling crisis of 1947.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
But you can't have hpi feeding into your main inflation measure, because what if it gets out of control? The secondary effect will be that the BoE feebly tries to rein it in, the primary one will be feed through to all those indexed final salary pensions that Barty is so unhappy about. So you pension goes up, and your il gilts, precisely because your house price does. Huzzah.
Because it might give the government some incentive to legislate for considerable extra housebuilding?
It might, but there's less convoluted ways of doing that
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Doesn’t actually say that:
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
No, but "real change" is most simply translated as "not a Tory government".
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
Hmm. Isn't that a bit EnglandistheUKist?
Edit: which makes political decisions at the next election(s) interesting, of course.
Who you want in No 10 isn't really the main determinant in Scotland for who you vote for in Scotland (aside from perhaps some SLAB-SCON unionist swing voters).
That's an astounding assertion given the unpopularity of the last Conservative PM in Scotland, and the linked crash in the Conservative vote. Even the SNP vote can be interpreted as "**** the Tories AND Labour".
Well, I did say aside from some 'SLAB-SCON unionist swing voters'. Pretty much all those SCON voters went over to SLAB in the polls. And you can't put an SNP MP in Downing Street, so if you're voting for them then your motivating factor probably (unless you're living somewhere like Banff and Buchan where Labour are nowhere) isn't who you want running the UK government.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
It does capture it. Least how I'm thinking of it.
As your house goes up in value so does your equity - therefore the 'income foregone due to it being tied up in a house' element of your housing cost increases.
That's not how it's calculated. Housing cost is calculated as an owner occupier and rental equivalent, so with low interest rates the index is low, with high interest rates it's high. It doesn't properly take into account rising asset values because there's not necessarily an ongoing cost to someone who owns the asset.
So the rental equivalent takes no account of the amount of equity?
There are several established techniques for incorporating the costs of owner occupied housing into inflation measures (rents are already included but as this is PB nobody gives a fuck about renters except for middle class millenials who can't afford to buy anywhere nice).
This nice paper summarises them.
(The UK's CPIH measure follows the rental equivalence approach).
Private Rents are arguably not weighted to the level they should be, but its not simply "renters" and "owner occupiers" that exist. To switch from being a renter to an owner occupier requires paying for the house price, and that makes the cost paid a cost and not equity that they have gained.
It is both. If I buy a house for £300k with a £250k mortgage then I have a new asset worth £300k, a reduction in my liquid assets of £50k and an increase in my financial liabilities of £250k. My net worth is unchanged. I have incurred a cost and gained equity in the house. If the house cost £350k it doesn't really alter things. The cost of owning the house comes from the interest payments, insurance, maintenance costs etc. Not from the principal payments, which are a financial transaction. Conceptually there is an implicit rent payment in there too. But housing is an asset and asset prices don't belong in a measure of goods and services inflation. I agree central banks should pay attention to it. But just shoehorning it into the CPI isn't the right way to go about it.
It is a cost of living. If you have a house, its because you need somewhere to live, if you don't pay for a house one way or another you end up homeless. So housing absolutely should be fully incorporated as a cost, at the correct weighting for what it does cost.
Not for second home or BTL buyers, sure, they are buying an asset, but anyone who is paying for a home is paying a cost, even if there's an asset at the end of the day.
Cars are an asset, but they're also a cost, so are quite rightly incorporated within inflation for CPI, but houses are excluded.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I think you would want house prices in there to a degree because people buy houses, it's a living cost.
Yep, so it's a matter of how to include those costs. How I look at it is that the regular outgoing (that I'd want to measure) is the rent or (if an owner) the rent equivalent. This latter being mortgage servicing costs plus (if there is equity) the "lost" interest income on that element, ie the income foregone (to the owner) due to it being tied up in a house. Conceptually that's what I'd include in an inflation figure, I think. No clue what they actually do but I'd hope it's something like that.
That's CPIH, but it doesn't capture house price inflation which is where the majority of the nation's inflation problem has been until now.
But you can't have hpi feeding into your main inflation measure, because what if it gets out of control? The secondary effect will be that the BoE feebly tries to rein it in, the primary one will be feed through to all those indexed final salary pensions that Barty is so unhappy about. So you pension goes up, and your il gilts, precisely because your house price does. Huzzah.
Because it might give the government some incentive to legislate for considerable extra housebuilding?
It might, but there's less convoluted ways of doing that
I think now might be the time for cabinet members to start anonymously briefing that Bailey isn't up to the job and is making their jobs more difficult by stretching out this inflationary period. He's got to go, as bad as Truss and Kwarteng.
I think now might be the time for cabinet members to start anonymously briefing that Bailey isn't up to the job and is making their jobs more difficult by stretching out this inflationary period. He's got to go, as bad as Truss and Kwarteng.
Worse.
Truss and Kwarteng were at least seeking to address problems, even if they weren't able to do so competently.
Bailey is just useless. No positives whatsoever, no idea what he's doing there.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
Where was the discontinuity between Darling and Osborne?
I think now might be the time for cabinet members to start anonymously briefing that Bailey isn't up to the job and is making their jobs more difficult by stretching out this inflationary period. He's got to go, as bad as Truss and Kwarteng.
I am sure that a public dissing of independent bodies is precisely what the markets have been crying out for.
To paraphrase Claire Short, I suppose they want golden elephants.
My God. You'd think there would be a point when politicians would stop going on about how safe and comfortable migrants are when they're literally giving them diphtheria in a camp. https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1587163725043273728
It's their choice to cross the Channel.
The authorities have a duty of care to detained illegal immigrants, imprisoned convicted paedophile rapists, prisoners of war, etc. etc., and the alternative would be barbarism.
This clapped out, miserable, hopeless, culture warrior government is clapped out and has screwed everyone. Time to go. And go now.
You just said that, but didn't answer my response:
Great. Who should we change to that has any better idea of what to do?
Easy. Labour. Starmer and Reeves look a good team, with more brain power between them than the entire Tory frontbench combined.
They are not a match for Sunak and Hunt
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
Objectively @Big_G_NorthWales is right. Sunak has been Chancellor during one of the most difficult periods in peacetime, and Hunt is a massively experienced government minister. I think Starmer and Reeves are very respectable, particularly compared with a lot of the lightweights on both sides of the house, and in particular their own side, but neither has any experience of actual government
If that were true, there would never be a change of government.
Indeed, but the point was to whether S &R are a match for S &H. Objectively they are not. Doesn't mean to say the electorate won't put them in govt tho.
Starmer was more than a match for Sunak at PMQs this week.
Agreed, but PMQs is politics, it is not government. In answer to your's and @BartholomewRoberts post I was simply saying that the Labour team is objectively not as strong based on governmental experience. It is not a reason not to change government, but it is an objective measurement.
Incidentally, I think an impartial observer would say that both sides are pretty evenly balanced from a political skill perspective
1992-7 only 100x worse with the economy and living standards tanking, going the opposite way from the Major years.
The next GE result will be cataclysmic for the tories.
Starmer is no Blair and Labour are no where near as strong as New Labour was running up to 1997.
Conservatives will lose the nect election of course but Labour will only get a small majority. The next election will be 1974 not 1997 IMO.
Lets hope that weirdo Andrew Bridgen MP is finished!
BUT. One difference between the challenge of Blair and that of Starmer.
In 1997 there was no truly successful, competent Labour government in living memory. The last Callaghan government had ended at the IMF, the last of reign of Wilson was more than 2 decades ago and his heyday was 3 decades ago. So Blair faced a major credibility gap which he had to work hard, and successfully, to close.
Blair and Brown were more recent and although the financial crisis was a blot on the end of Brown's rule both he and Blair are still remembered as competent administrators who didn't immediately plunge the country into a sterling or debt crisis. Blair's biggest black mark was Iraq. So I think it's easier for potential Labour voters now to imagine a Blair-style government with decent economic growth and improving public services.
I am no fan of Callaghan , but his Government did not 'end at the IMF'. The IMF was called in late 1976 - based on inaccurate data which when subsequently revised implied there had actually been no need to resort to it after all. His Government also bequeathed a lower RPI inflation rate to Thatcher in May 1979 than we face today.
What about Clement Atlees 1945 governments achievements, at a time when the country was on its knees
The achievements built on huge amounts of financial aid from the USA?
Comments
Think about that for a second.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/30/sunak-tories-labour-repair-economy-voters-new-poll?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63466582
The notion that the only people that matter are homeowners is a very perverted one. You wouldn't say the only people that matter are toilet paper hoarders who don't need to buy toilet paper anymore, so why exclude people who have to pay the cost but don't gain from equity from the calculations?
What I'm offering to the Blog is my way of looking at housing costs for an owner. The rent equivalent.
This being - the interest cost of the mortgage plus the interest foregone on the equity tied up in the house.
Also of note is that in the last 7 days Ukraine are claiming close to 5,000 kills. Given where this has been happening (Bahkmut and Donestsk) and the claimed loss of 100 Russian tanks too (an offensive weapon), we should conclude the very high numbers are Russia trying to force an offensive. It feels very similar to the battle of SeveroDonetsk in the summer. Rope a dope. Punish them heavily for extremely limited territorial gain of any strategic significance. And then strike back thereafter.
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1588158672299081728?t=Nr-6WzGvNytzFWgaCF-Iow&s=19
Basically, Con 2019 voters feel Sunak is better than what went before, but see him as a caretaker until a Labour government, and plan to vote Labour for that change.
Reeves and Labour proposed a windfall tax. Sunak ruled it out, and then when he introduced it, it was described as a u-turn everywhere from the Telegraph to the Guardian, via the Express, the FT and so on.
As for it being a good thing, personally I have said "student loans" [read: graduate tax] should be abolished as part of having just a single rate of tax paid for equitably by everyone on the same income, regardless of age or how they earn their income.
But yes, if inflation goes up then that should factor into anything that's index linked. Excluding inflation because it might affect index linked costs is purely fraudulent, break index-linking if you don't want to increase whatever is indexed by inflation.
However if the Government becomes concerned that inflation will increase their costs due to index linking, perhaps they might take inflation more seriously, rather than falsely pretending it doesn't exist simply because a small portion of the population can evade it.
I think it really could have worked. Had they succeeded in capturing Zelenskyy, or if he had run in the way Afghanistan's President fled, then central organisation of resistance would have been much weaker.
And it's not so outrageous a prediction for them to have made. Western intelligence expected the same outcome, and thought Ukrainians would now be fighting a guerrilla war.
This group seem sceptical about Sunak’s prospects; while they are reasonably positive about the new Prime Minister, and only moderately positive about the Labour Party, there was a strong sense from this group that they wanted some real change.
Doesn’t say the “real change” they want is a Labour government.
(and Gordon Brown’s to blame)
The Tories gonna blame the past
(so Gordie gets the blame)
My Nan can’t pay her leccie bill
(and Gordie’s still to blame)
Twelve wasted years of Tory shill
(yet Gordie’s still to blame)
Interesting anecdote from two in room sources: at last EU foreign ministers meeting, @ABaerbock said NS2 is over and over forever.
@JosepBorrellF responded by repeating the point and saying has everyone recorded that?
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1588149364018630664
This nice paper summarises them.
(The UK's CPIH measure follows the rental equivalence approach).
https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/ppr/fordjupningar/engelska/2021/different-methods-of-measuring-housing-costs-in-the-consumer-price-index-article-in-monetary-policy-report-september-2021.pdf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjVmJqKnJL7AhW1SEEAHTzSApcQ3yx6BAgYEAI&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSOp507HJMA&usg=AOvVaw3eI1sVqZ18snJoiF3IRk1N
Sunak could grow into his role, but I subjectively felt that Starmer did very well at both of the last two PMQs and that subjective measurement was matched by many others thinking the same.
You are right that if anyone is claiming Labour is rampantly popular they are deluded.
But Labour are the only other game in town* for those who have decided that enough is enough.
* Except for those (few) towns where the only other game is the LDs. And that is not good news for the Tories either.
Edit: which makes political decisions at the next election(s) interesting, of course.
RCP have a record of being a little more likely to label something as a "tossup" in seats than others however their record is fantastic when they do call either Lean, Likely or Safe. In the last 5 sets of Us House elections they have only made 10 incorrect calls combined if they do indicate a preference. Including of year where every call was correct.
This is noteworthy as currently RCP is predicting
174 Democrat
228 Republican
33 Toss Ups
This would make 240+ a very high chance indeed
It's also mostly undeserved.
It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.
"Children don't enjoy the Vikings *despite* their being bloodthirsty. They enjoy them *because* they were bloodthirsty."
https://unherd.com/2022/11/the-viking-war-on-woke/?fbclid=IwAR0Gu_Jv7itSVFkdlkowwFgD3ZJPyhib3HF9Z3cyF9YXeZGleyCliZp6h_8
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1587163725043273728
And you can't put an SNP MP in Downing Street, so if you're voting for them then your motivating factor probably (unless you're living somewhere like Banff and Buchan where Labour are nowhere) isn't who you want running the UK government.
Not for second home or BTL buyers, sure, they are buying an asset, but anyone who is paying for a home is paying a cost, even if there's an asset at the end of the day.
Cars are an asset, but they're also a cost, so are quite rightly incorporated within inflation for CPI, but houses are excluded.
Truss and Kwarteng were at least seeking to address problems, even if they weren't able to do so competently.
Bailey is just useless. No positives whatsoever, no idea what he's doing there.
It’s a more enjoyable alternative to “In our time” where they bring in an expert or two but it’s not as rushed through as with Melvyn Bragg.
Incidentally, I think an impartial observer would say that both sides are pretty evenly balanced from a political skill perspective