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.
Bailey is more responsible for the volatility in uk financial markets this year than anybody. Independence does not mean you can be shite at your job and spectacularly fail from your mandate and yet be free from democratic oversight. It’s a shame Truss didn’t try firing him before going for 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.
I am sure that a public dissing of independent bodies is precisely what the markets have been crying out for.
Bailey himself doesn't seem to hold market confidence any longer, that's the issue. We have a BoE governor with no credibility. Replacing him with someone who does will itself be a big step forwards. Rishi put him there under the Boris mantra of sticking controllable stooges in place. Now is the time to pull out that long awaited FCA conduct investigation from his time as chief.
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.
Now? He should never have been given the job in the first place.
The BoE is supposed to be ahead of the curve but they are 3 months behind due to 3 different mistakes made over the past year
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.
Now? He should never have been given the job in the first place.
The BoE is supposed to be ahead of the curve but they are 3 months behind due to 3 different mistakes made over the past year
He was only given the job because of his pro-Brexit position. The gift that keeps on giving.
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
One thing I don't understand about the worldwide recession is the situation with unemployment. We are all aware that there is zero unemployment in the UK, and in America despite them having 2 quarters of negative growth, there are 2 vacancies for every unemployed person.
As someone who left school in the early 80's when there were no jobs and who went through the recessions that followed, recessions normally cause mass unemployment, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening either here or in America.I think the FED in America have been desperate for a bit of umemployment to help their fight against inflation, and can't believe that it hasn't happened with their interest rate rises.
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.
Point taken! Though you also need to account for Wales (even if NI is sui generis).
Covid was not easy. But fiscally, it hit people hardest who didn't pay a lot of tax, while most taxpayers were able to adjust readily to remote work, if they had to. Interest rates were also floor-low. So most governments got over it by just borrowing and letting future generations pay, Sunak included. It turned out, though, that the future generation was just two years away.
One thing I don't understand about the worldwide recession is the situation with unemployment. We are all aware that there is zero unemployment in the UK, and in America despite them having 2 quarters of negative growth, there are 2 vacancies for every unemployed person.
As someone who left school in the early 80's when there were no jobs and who went through the recessions that followed, recessions normally cause mass unemployment, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening either here or in America.I think the FED in America have been desperate for a bit of umemployment to help their fight against inflation, and can't believe that it hasn't happened with their interest rate rises.
Since the 1980s? Unemployment has been defined away or blurred into sort-of-employment (ZHC, expanded student population).
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
Was Gordon Brown totally without any failings or flaws in your view ?
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
Was Gordon Brown totally without any failings or flaws in your view ?
No way. Some negatives that come to mind -
Let the City run riot and crash the economy. The PFI scam (NB, Bart, this one does merit the word) which wasted lots of public money. Did 'famine feast' on public spending instead of a smooth controlled increase. Constantly agitating for the top job and destabilising TB.
But he was still a towering and benign politician cf what we've had the last few years.
One thing I don't understand about the worldwide recession is the situation with unemployment. We are all aware that there is zero unemployment in the UK, and in America despite them having 2 quarters of negative growth, there are 2 vacancies for every unemployed person.
As someone who left school in the early 80's when there were no jobs and who went through the recessions that followed, recessions normally cause mass unemployment, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening either here or in America.I think the FED in America have been desperate for a bit of umemployment to help their fight against inflation, and can't believe that it hasn't happened with their interest rate rises.
The FED has been very explicit that they want to increase unemployment.
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
And any potential successors within the Labour Party.
Off topic, but many of you may find his interesting: Issues that aren't. This year, I have been struck by important issues that draw no attention from our news critters or most candidates.
1. Ukraine. There are those on the left and the Trumpist right who would like to see less US aid to Ukraine, but the major party candidates are mostly ignoring them. (I am not a fan of Joe Biden, but I think he has handled this about right, and deserves some credit for doing so.)
2. COVID. The states vary greatly in their deaths per million from COVID, with Republican governors generally doing worse than Democratic governors. (One important exception: Phil Scott of Vermont, an anti-Trump Republican.)
3. The incredible years-long increase in housing costs. In general, Republican states have done much better at providing affordable housing, because they have put fewer controls on where houses can be built. (Not so incidentally, many Democratic politicans have made big financial gains from those controls. For example, Washington state's junior senator probably has gained more than a million dollars from our growth management act -- which she sponsored when she was a member of the state legislature.)
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
The cost is either rent or mortgage interest + maintenance.
One thing I don't understand about the worldwide recession is the situation with unemployment. We are all aware that there is zero unemployment in the UK, and in America despite them having 2 quarters of negative growth, there are 2 vacancies for every unemployed person.
As someone who left school in the early 80's when there were no jobs and who went through the recessions that followed, recessions normally cause mass unemployment, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening either here or in America.I think the FED in America have been desperate for a bit of umemployment to help their fight against inflation, and can't believe that it hasn't happened with their interest rate rises.
The FED has been very explicit that they want to increase unemployment.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
One thing I don't understand about the worldwide recession is the situation with unemployment. We are all aware that there is zero unemployment in the UK, and in America despite them having 2 quarters of negative growth, there are 2 vacancies for every unemployed person.
As someone who left school in the early 80's when there were no jobs and who went through the recessions that followed, recessions normally cause mass unemployment, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening either here or in America.I think the FED in America have been desperate for a bit of umemployment to help their fight against inflation, and can't believe that it hasn't happened with their interest rate rises.
The FED has been very explicit that they want to increase unemployment.
What a grim symptom of our economies.
TBF I think there is a consensus emerging that unemployment needs to be increased among central bankers, politicians and civil servants.
It's just what *the public* mean by that and *central bankers, politicians and civil servants* mean by it is ever so slightly different...
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Policies haven’t failed. They have been overtaken by events
Wilson could certainly have made that claim re-Devaluation in November 1967.
The evidence was that Wilson should have devalued In late autumn '64. The likes of Cairncross were advising the need to devalue immediately after the election, but Wilson panicked (it was seen as an issue of national pride). Then events overtook the Government and November '67 and devaluation was forced on the Government. Something Labour Party economic competence quotiens are yet to come to terms with.
Frances Cairncross has a series on Wilson's reticence to devalue on BBC Sounds.
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
The cost is either rent or mortgage interest + maintenance.
In an ideal world they would be roughly equal.
The capital is a cost too, if you fail to keep up with capital repayments and your bank puts you into default and repossesses your home then that is because it was still a cost.
Even if it was a payment that would have left you with an asset had you kept up with repayment, it is still a cost of living, that is is also an asset is neither here nor there. Cars are assets too but are measured as a cost from new car list prices and not the net change in cost to resale cost.
As @OnlyLivingBoy said CPI is there to measure cost, not assets, but then went on a confused tangent by getting tangled up viewing housing as an asset. Housing is an essential cost, fail to pay that cost and you have nowhere to live and are homeless. Any asset considerations should not be classed within inflation, the fact that costs have gone up or down is the inflationary factor.
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
How are you separating bad for the Tories from good for Labour?
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
How are you separating bad for the Tories from good for Labour?
Electoral politics isn't a zero sum game between two parties.
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
No time for a novice!
Well indeed, it is a powerful argument, though it didn't work that well for Gordon Brown in the end as the electorate decided they would prefer a novice anyway. I guess it will always depend on how appealing the novice is (no nun-puns please - I'd rather not get into that kind of habit)
Part of the challenge with housing costs is how to measure quality. If you pay 10% more for 10% better, that's not inflation. We can assume most goods don't vary in quality from month to month (foods) but it's not true for other goods (tech) and very hard to say for housing. If you pay rent to access a labour market, and wages are going up, is a rental increase really a price level increase or does it reflect access to a higher-quality wage packet?
One thing I don't understand about the worldwide recession is the situation with unemployment. We are all aware that there is zero unemployment in the UK, and in America despite them having 2 quarters of negative growth, there are 2 vacancies for every unemployed person.
As someone who left school in the early 80's when there were no jobs and who went through the recessions that followed, recessions normally cause mass unemployment, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening either here or in America.I think the FED in America have been desperate for a bit of umemployment to help their fight against inflation, and can't believe that it hasn't happened with their interest rate rises.
The FED has been very explicit that they want to increase unemployment.
Surely the question of the Governorship of the Bank of England is working its way to the top of Sunak's agenda. Despite having to make a 0.75% increase today Mr Bailey sulkily maintained that that was probably it and that inflation was somehow going to come back to target again within 3 years without further tightening. This has resulted in the pound losing nearly 2% of its value today increasing both imported inflation and the cost of the gas price guarantee.
It is really not good enough. There is still a failure to recognise the extent to which the Bank fell behind the curve and an almost perverse determination to fall even further behind in the future. Mr Bailey is clearly concerned that these increasing rates will deepen the coming recession. He is right about that but those are the consequences of failing to act timeously. He really has to go.
Looks like a levelling out, which kind of makes sense.
Ooh. Early days, but if the Sunak Surge tops out here, that matters.
After all, there's not a lot on the horizon to make the public look at the government more fondly.
The polls are following the script at the moment.
Grown-ups are back in charge of the country so the headlong rush to Labour has stopped and there is something of a return to normality, but there is a heck of a way to go before the Tories are competitive again, and obvious problems to encounter on the way.
Fwiw, I'm thinking of 30% plays 45% in the main contest at the GE. Plug that into Electoral Calculus and you get a decent rump of Tories with which to begin the rebuilding process. Factor in some tactical voting though, and it ain't so good.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Looks like a levelling out, which kind of makes sense.
Ooh. Early days, but if the Sunak Surge tops out here, that matters.
After all, there's not a lot on the horizon to make the public look at the government more fondly.
The polls are following the script at the moment.
Grown-ups are back in charge of the country so the headlong rush to Labour has stopped and there is something of a return to normality, but there is a heck of a way to go before the Tories are competitive again, and obvious problems to encounter on the way.
Fwiw, I'm thinking of 30% plays 45% in the main contest at the GE. Plug that into Electoral Calculus and you get a decent rump of Tories with which to begin the rebuilding process. Factor in some tactical voting though, and it ain't so good.
I suspect it will narrow significantly when the possibility of a Labour landslide look possible. It has always been my view that one of the things that was the undoing of TMay was the expectation of a landslide, which was far more of a factor than the dementia tax
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
How are you separating bad for the Tories from good for Labour?
Electoral politics isn't a zero sum game between two parties.
Not totally but with our FPTP system it mainly is. In any case I'm interested in how you're distinguishing the 2 things in practice. Maybe give me a couple of examples of where Brown did something that was bad for the Tories but not necessarily equally good for Labour?
Unemployment has stayed low despite slowing economies because - I reckon - so many people have dropped out of the jobs market, post covid
People have taken early retirement, others have been hugely displaced, others have died or are suffering long covid (or other sicknesses consequent on covid)
That’s an awful lot of people suddenly not seeking work
Bridge and Bridge Without, City of London common council, Ind defence: Lab, Indx4 Selsdon Vale and Forestdale, Croydon Council, C defence: C, L, LD, G, Ind Salisbury St Paul’s, Wiltshire Council, C defence: C, L, LD Longstanton, South Cambridgeshire Council, LDx2 defence:Cx2, Lx2, LDx2, Gx2, Ind Chasetown, Lichfield Council, C defence: C, L Eastwood, Nottinghamshire County Council, C defence: C, L, Ind Buckie, Moray Council, LD defence: C, L, LD, SNP, Ind
Unemployment has stayed low despite slowing economies because - I reckon - so many people have dropped out of the jobs market, post covid
People have taken early retirement, others have been hugely displaced, others have died or are suffering long covid (or other sicknesses consequent on covid)
That’s an awful lot of people suddenly not seeking work
People have reassessed their lives since spending more time with their families during lockdown. Combined with knowing people who have died from COVID, people wonder if there is more from life than working all the time.
This is especially true among more skilled professionals who previously worked 60+ hours per week. Lack of top, top talent will ve the main constraint on growth for Western economies. The UK in particular is well placed now to ramp up recruitment of the highly skilled, but the unwillingness to limit low skilled labour will cause an overall immigration backlash that makes it very hard to do.
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
How are you separating bad for the Tories from good for Labour?
Electoral politics isn't a zero sum game between two parties.
Not totally but with our FPTP system it mainly is. In any case I'm interested in how you're distinguishing the 2 things in practice. Maybe give me a couple of examples of where Brown did something that was bad for the Tories but not necessarily equally good for Labour?
His time as Chancellor was 20 years ago, plus or minus five so I can't remember specific things - but there's definitely a difference bewteen "good for us" and "bad for them". Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio would understand.
Unemployment has stayed low despite slowing economies because - I reckon - so many people have dropped out of the jobs market, post covid
People have taken early retirement, others have been hugely displaced, others have died or are suffering long covid (or other sicknesses consequent on covid)
That’s an awful lot of people suddenly not seeking work
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Surely the question of the Governorship of the Bank of England is working its way to the top of Sunak's agenda. Despite having to make a 0.75% increase today Mr Bailey sulkily maintained that that was probably it and that inflation was somehow going to come back to target again within 3 years without further tightening. This has resulted in the pound losing nearly 2% of its value today increasing both imported inflation and the cost of the gas price guarantee.
It is really not good enough. There is still a failure to recognise the extent to which the Bank fell behind the curve and an almost perverse determination to fall even further behind in the future. Mr Bailey is clearly concerned that these increasing rates will deepen the coming recession. He is right about that but those are the consequences of failing to act timeously. He really has to go.
Great word, "timeously", and not one that I knew until now.
Surely the question of the Governorship of the Bank of England is working its way to the top of Sunak's agenda. Despite having to make a 0.75% increase today Mr Bailey sulkily maintained that that was probably it and that inflation was somehow going to come back to target again within 3 years without further tightening. This has resulted in the pound losing nearly 2% of its value today increasing both imported inflation and the cost of the gas price guarantee.
It is really not good enough. There is still a failure to recognise the extent to which the Bank fell behind the curve and an almost perverse determination to fall even further behind in the future. Mr Bailey is clearly concerned that these increasing rates will deepen the coming recession. He is right about that but those are the consequences of failing to act timeously. He really has to go.
Contrast the sulky behaviour of Bailey today, with the forceful statement by Carney that the Bank of England would do whatever it takes on 24 June 2016.
Whatever you think of Brexit, lets not get into that, the simple fact is that Carney expressed himself forcefully and firmly and showed the Bank in way to be taken seriously.
Bailey with his half-hearted "fine we've done 0.75% but the market is wrong and we don't intend to do more" is showing the Bank to be weak, which makes the problem worse, which means the Bank will have to do more in the end. Its madness and he's just not good enough.
I have just got back from a marathon collection caper to get a 982 from a bloke with one arm in County Durham. Like Autoclyus, I am a snapper up of ill considered trifles. Two things I noticed...
War Christmas is already in full swing in England's northernmost oblasts. Poppy shit everywhere.
All anybody will talk about is fucking Albanians - one armed bloke, woman in petrol station, bloke in caff. Whoever is pushing the Albanian Invasion line on socials is doing a very good job.
Surely the question of the Governorship of the Bank of England is working its way to the top of Sunak's agenda. Despite having to make a 0.75% increase today Mr Bailey sulkily maintained that that was probably it and that inflation was somehow going to come back to target again within 3 years without further tightening. This has resulted in the pound losing nearly 2% of its value today increasing both imported inflation and the cost of the gas price guarantee.
It is really not good enough. There is still a failure to recognise the extent to which the Bank fell behind the curve and an almost perverse determination to fall even further behind in the future. Mr Bailey is clearly concerned that these increasing rates will deepen the coming recession. He is right about that but those are the consequences of failing to act timeously. He really has to go.
Great word, "timeously", and not one that I knew until now.
I think it may be used more in Scotland. So, my written submissions in respect of an appeal due today were lodged timeously about 15 minutes ago!
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
How are you separating bad for the Tories from good for Labour?
Electoral politics isn't a zero sum game between two parties.
Not totally but with our FPTP system it mainly is. In any case I'm interested in how you're distinguishing the 2 things in practice. Maybe give me a couple of examples of where Brown did something that was bad for the Tories but not necessarily equally good for Labour?
His time as Chancellor was 20 years ago, plus or minus five so I can't remember specific things - but there's definitely a difference bewteen "good for us" and "bad for them". Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio would understand.
In other words you're spouting vacuous bullshit. Fair enough. Makes the world go round.
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
However if you discount inexperience in Government, you discount Blair, Cameron, Clegg and Osborne (which may not be a bad thing). On the flip side we have enjoyed the experience of May, Johnson, Truss, Raab, Patel, Breverman, Kwarteng... How.has experience worked out recently?
Policies haven’t failed. They have been overtaken by events
Brexit hasn't failed, It's just been overtaken by reality...
Brexit is merely taking back control. What you do with that control is what matters. May had the right ideas but screwed up the politics. Boris had the right ideas but was too lazy for execution. Truss just had bad ideas.
Surely the question of the Governorship of the Bank of England is working its way to the top of Sunak's agenda. Despite having to make a 0.75% increase today Mr Bailey sulkily maintained that that was probably it and that inflation was somehow going to come back to target again within 3 years without further tightening. This has resulted in the pound losing nearly 2% of its value today increasing both imported inflation and the cost of the gas price guarantee.
It is really not good enough. There is still a failure to recognise the extent to which the Bank fell behind the curve and an almost perverse determination to fall even further behind in the future. Mr Bailey is clearly concerned that these increasing rates will deepen the coming recession. He is right about that but those are the consequences of failing to act timeously. He really has to go.
Great word, "timeously", and not one that I knew until now.
I think it may be used more in Scotland. So, my written submissions in respect of an appeal due today were lodged timeously about 15 minutes ago!
Yep, that's what the dictionary said (and S Africa, apparently) when I looked it up to check the obvious meaning was correct and it wasn't just a typo.
I have just got back from a marathon collection caper to get a 982 from a bloke with one arm in County Durham. Like Autoclyus, I am a snapper up of ill considered trifles. Two things I noticed...
War Christmas is already in full swing in England's northernmost oblasts. Poppy shit everywhere.
All anybody will talk about is fucking Albanians - one armed bloke, woman in petrol station, bloke in caff. Whoever is pushing the Albanian Invasion line on socials is doing a very good job.
I wish our regions were called oblasts. Sounds badass.
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
How are you separating bad for the Tories from good for Labour?
Electoral politics isn't a zero sum game between two parties.
Not totally but with our FPTP system it mainly is. In any case I'm interested in how you're distinguishing the 2 things in practice. Maybe give me a couple of examples of where Brown did something that was bad for the Tories but not necessarily equally good for Labour?
His time as Chancellor was 20 years ago, plus or minus five so I can't remember specific things - but there's definitely a difference bewteen "good for us" and "bad for them". Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio would understand.
In other words you're spouting vacuous bullshit. Fair enough. Makes the world go round.
TBH, I could go back and find my records of what I wrote at the time, but since you'll never be convinced it's not worth the hassle.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
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?
Well Osborne was the purest of political chancellors whose one and only calculation in doing something was its electoral benefit to the Conservative Party. That was quite a break from what had gone before.
Indeed. Gordon Brown's primary motivation was what was bad for the Conservative Party.
He was 25/75 national interest v party interest. And God how we'd take that now. Hopefully Sunak will be around that mark.
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Most politicans go "good for party", "good for self", "good for country", swapping the first two in some cases.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
How are you separating bad for the Tories from good for Labour?
Electoral politics isn't a zero sum game between two parties.
Not totally but with our FPTP system it mainly is. In any case I'm interested in how you're distinguishing the 2 things in practice. Maybe give me a couple of examples of where Brown did something that was bad for the Tories but not necessarily equally good for Labour?
His time as Chancellor was 20 years ago, plus or minus five so I can't remember specific things - but there's definitely a difference bewteen "good for us" and "bad for them". Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio would understand.
In other words you're spouting vacuous bullshit. Fair enough. Makes the world go round.
TBH, I could go back and find my records of what I wrote at the time, but since you'll never be convinced it's not worth the hassle.
'Constantly agitating for the top job and destabilising TB.'
That was the main problem as far as I was concerned.
He had no ideological beef with Blair; it was just a turf war.
Felt Blair had usurped him, I think. The weightier, more experienced person had not got the job he believed was his due and it ate away.
Blair was a good PM, if you can forgive Iraq. Brown was a good Chancellor, until he gave up prudence.
Brown was a poor PM, if you can ignore his handling of the financial crisis.
Although handling that was his defining task as PM. And he did step up to the plate.
Yeah, he saved the world, right?
The truth was rather more prosaic. Catastrophe was avoided and he played a leading role in that.
He was the man in possession and he did what his officials told him was necessary. That's not guaranteed but it shouldn't be deserving of massive praise: "he didn't fuck it all up any worse than he'd already made it".
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Bridge and Bridge Without, City of London common council, Ind defence: Lab, Indx4 Selsdon Vale and Forestdale, Croydon Council, C defence: C, L, LD, G, Ind Salisbury St Paul’s, Wiltshire Council, C defence: C, L, LD Longstanton, South Cambridgeshire Council, LDx2 defence:Cx2, Lx2, LDx2, Gx2, Ind Chasetown, Lichfield Council, C defence: C, L Eastwood, Nottinghamshire County Council, C defence: C, L, Ind Buckie, Moray Council, LD defence: C, L, LD, SNP, Ind
He does great work. I only know one of the seats, but the write up is pretty spot on.
Bridge and Bridge Without is a fanastic ward name. I like that it only extends to halfway across the bridge.
I have just got back from a marathon collection caper to get a 982 from a bloke with one arm in County Durham. Like Autoclyus, I am a snapper up of ill considered trifles. Two things I noticed...
War Christmas is already in full swing in England's northernmost oblasts. Poppy shit everywhere.
All anybody will talk about is fucking Albanians - one armed bloke, woman in petrol station, bloke in caff. Whoever is pushing the Albanian Invasion line on socials is doing a very good job.
It’s the revelation that the Home Office is block booking 4 and even 5 star hotels in towns across the country: taking them over for the Albanians
And the taxpayers are paying for them. To be kept warm and fed all winter in 4 star hotels
That’s a dazzlingly powerful meme (in a bad way) as people look at their own heating bills and their friends going to food banks. You could not devise a better advert (in a bad way) for the fucked upness of the channel crossings
Bridge and Bridge Without, City of London common council, Ind defence: Lab, Indx4 Selsdon Vale and Forestdale, Croydon Council, C defence: C, L, LD, G, Ind Salisbury St Paul’s, Wiltshire Council, C defence: C, L, LD Longstanton, South Cambridgeshire Council, LDx2 defence:Cx2, Lx2, LDx2, Gx2, Ind Chasetown, Lichfield Council, C defence: C, L Eastwood, Nottinghamshire County Council, C defence: C, L, Ind Buckie, Moray Council, LD defence: C, L, LD, SNP, Ind
Thanks! The Buckie election is even worse than the usual Scottish multimember local government seat [edit] if one has to try and work out what the fair comparison of the result with the "previous" result - whatever that is best read as. LD won only because only three stood in a three-seat ward - so zero votes ...
'Constantly agitating for the top job and destabilising TB.'
That was the main problem as far as I was concerned.
He had no ideological beef with Blair; it was just a turf war.
Felt Blair had usurped him, I think. The weightier, more experienced person had not got the job he believed was his due and it ate away.
Blair was a good PM, if you can forgive Iraq. Brown was a good Chancellor, until he gave up prudence.
Brown was a poor PM, if you can ignore his handling of the financial crisis.
Although handling that was his defining task as PM. And he did step up to the plate.
Yeah, he saved the world, right?
The truth was rather more prosaic. Catastrophe was avoided and he played a leading role in that.
He was the man in possession and he did what his officials told him was necessary. That's not guaranteed but it shouldn't be deserving of massive praise: "he didn't fuck it all up any worse than he'd already made it".
Completely at odds with all serious accounts of what went down.
'Constantly agitating for the top job and destabilising TB.'
That was the main problem as far as I was concerned.
He had no ideological beef with Blair; it was just a turf war.
Felt Blair had usurped him, I think. The weightier, more experienced person had not got the job he believed was his due and it ate away.
Blair was a good PM, if you can forgive Iraq. Brown was a good Chancellor, until he gave up prudence.
Brown was a poor PM, if you can ignore his handling of the financial crisis.
Although handling that was his defining task as PM. And he did step up to the plate.
Yeah, he saved the world, right?
The truth was rather more prosaic. Catastrophe was avoided and he played a leading role in that.
He was the man in possession and he did what his officials told him was necessary. That's not guaranteed but it shouldn't be deserving of massive praise: "he didn't fuck it all up any worse than he'd already made it".
Completely at odds with all serious accounts of what went down.
That depends on how you define "serious", of course.
Looks like a levelling out, which kind of makes sense.
Ooh. Early days, but if the Sunak Surge tops out here, that matters.
After all, there's not a lot on the horizon to make the public look at the government more fondly.
The polls are following the script at the moment.
Grown-ups are back in charge of the country so the headlong rush to Labour has stopped and there is something of a return to normality, but there is a heck of a way to go before the Tories are competitive again, and obvious problems to encounter on the way.
Fwiw, I'm thinking of 30% plays 45% in the main contest at the GE. Plug that into Electoral Calculus and you get a decent rump of Tories with which to begin the rebuilding process. Factor in some tactical voting though, and it ain't so good.
There is so much in your reading of the polling I just don’t like.
To start with, did the Starmergasm only stop and level out when “ Grown-ups are back in charge of the country” last week, or weeks before? There was the drop, the change in labours lead, largely driven by media taking leave of their senses and describing everyday of a temporary run on the pound as though it was black Wednesday everyday, but labours lead was actually swelled by squeeze on green and Lib Dem totals is the truth.
Now the grown ups are in charge, so say, where is the pro Grown Ups movement? This poll you are commentating on says 24%, up 1%? Eh? Where’s the grown ups bounce?
Maybe they are not seen as grown ups because it’s only you who thinks they are grown ups. Maybe voters don’t see Sunak and his cabinet as being the fresh change they want, maybe they don’t see them as grown ups in charge of an economy, maybe they don’t see the enormous gulf from the clueless kiddies of Truss and Kwarteng to the all grown up Sunak, like you do?
Those clueless kiddies did actually offer a fresh approach from years of failure your “grown ups” represent - growth budgets, tax reduction. And they didn’t crash the economy, it’s a myth. The grown ups represent high tax, maxxed out credit and zero growth, because the only truth that should come to mind when you hear “Sunak” is money printed then sprayed around like confetti with no attempt at financial discipline at all.
You’ve got your thinkers and kiddies muddled up here.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average 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.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Or just the average cost of the average house. Or new ones, like cars.
Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.
Brexit is merely taking back control. What you do with that control is what matters. May had the right ideas but screwed up the politics. Boris had the right ideas but was too lazy for execution. Truss just had bad ideas.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
Hardly a 'scam' though. If we strip out the lurid Gordophobic language we could probably have a decent chat about this interesting issue.
Not right now, I mean, but sometime in the future. Maybe.
I have just got back from a marathon collection caper to get a 982 from a bloke with one arm in County Durham. Like Autoclyus, I am a snapper up of ill considered trifles. Two things I noticed...
War Christmas is already in full swing in England's northernmost oblasts. Poppy shit everywhere.
All anybody will talk about is fucking Albanians - one armed bloke, woman in petrol station, bloke in caff. Whoever is pushing the Albanian Invasion line on socials is doing a very good job.
It’s the revelation that the Home Office is block booking 4 and even 5 star hotels in towns across the country: taking them over for the Albanians
And the taxpayers are paying for them. To be kept warm and fed all winter in 4 star hotels
That’s a dazzlingly powerful meme (in a bad way) as people look at their own heating bills and their friends going to food banks. You could not devise a better advert (in a bad way) for the fucked upness of the channel crossings
The government should just ignore the Liberati and go in as hard as nails on this issue and deport deport deport. Get some legal cover first. Emergency change of law if necessary.
They need to change the facts on the ground. Rhetoric alone doesn't cut it anymore.
Yes, the Liberati will howl like a wounded animal from the rooftops. But they'll do that anyway.
Brexit is merely taking back control. What you do with that control is what matters. May had the right ideas but screwed up the politics. Boris had the right ideas but was too lazy for execution. Truss just had bad ideas.
A lot of words for "Brexit is a shitshow"
If you're unable to synthesize someone's argument in a way they would agree with, then you an ideologue.
I have just got back from a marathon collection caper to get a 982 from a bloke with one arm in County Durham. Like Autoclyus, I am a snapper up of ill considered trifles. Two things I noticed...
War Christmas is already in full swing in England's northernmost oblasts. Poppy shit everywhere.
All anybody will talk about is fucking Albanians - one armed bloke, woman in petrol station, bloke in caff. Whoever is pushing the Albanian Invasion line on socials is doing a very good job.
For someone who hates the northern oblasts of Leaverstan, and those who reside in them, you sure do spend an awful lot of time visiting and talking to them.
Bridge and Bridge Without, City of London common council, Ind defence: Lab, Indx4 Selsdon Vale and Forestdale, Croydon Council, C defence: C, L, LD, G, Ind Salisbury St Paul’s, Wiltshire Council, C defence: C, L, LD Longstanton, South Cambridgeshire Council, LDx2 defence:Cx2, Lx2, LDx2, Gx2, Ind Chasetown, Lichfield Council, C defence: C, L Eastwood, Nottinghamshire County Council, C defence: C, L, Ind Buckie, Moray Council, LD defence: C, L, LD, SNP, Ind
He does great work. I only know one of the seats, but the write up is pretty spot on.
Bridge and Bridge Without is a fanastic ward name. I like that it only extends to halfway across the bridge.
I'd expect the LibDems to hold in Cambs and gain in Salisbury; Labour should gain in Lichfield, and the Tories cling on in South Croydon. In Notts if the Ashfield Indys are behind the Ind candidate then she'll win, otherwise Labour. The Scottish one looks like a cert for the SNP given they topped the poll before. No-one cares about the City of London.
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.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Looks like a levelling out, which kind of makes sense.
Ooh. Early days, but if the Sunak Surge tops out here, that matters.
After all, there's not a lot on the horizon to make the public look at the government more fondly.
The polls are following the script at the moment.
Grown-ups are back in charge of the country so the headlong rush to Labour has stopped and there is something of a return to normality, but there is a heck of a way to go before the Tories are competitive again, and obvious problems to encounter on the way.
Fwiw, I'm thinking of 30% plays 45% in the main contest at the GE. Plug that into Electoral Calculus and you get a decent rump of Tories with which to begin the rebuilding process. Factor in some tactical voting though, and it ain't so good.
I suspect it will narrow significantly when the possibility of a Labour landslide look possible. It has always been my view that one of the things that was the undoing of TMay was the expectation of a landslide, which was far more of a factor than the dementia tax
I disagree. It’s going to be one of those elections voters have a cross and will crucify someone with it - experience, talent, like ability, policies, aren’t going to play a single note in this coming election.
'Constantly agitating for the top job and destabilising TB.'
That was the main problem as far as I was concerned.
He had no ideological beef with Blair; it was just a turf war.
Felt Blair had usurped him, I think. The weightier, more experienced person had not got the job he believed was his due and it ate away.
Blair was a good PM, if you can forgive Iraq. Brown was a good Chancellor, until he gave up prudence.
Brown was a poor PM, if you can ignore his handling of the financial crisis.
Although handling that was his defining task as PM. And he did step up to the plate.
Yeah, he saved the world, right?
The truth was rather more prosaic. Catastrophe was avoided and he played a leading role in that.
He was the man in possession and he did what his officials told him was necessary. That's not guaranteed but it shouldn't be deserving of massive praise: "he didn't fuck it all up any worse than he'd already made it".
Completely at odds with all serious accounts of what went down.
That depends on how you define "serious", of course.
Usual def - accounts from those involved. Books and stuff. Plenty out there.
Where are you getting your info from if not from there?
Brexit is merely taking back control. What you do with that control is what matters. May had the right ideas but screwed up the politics. Boris had the right ideas but was too lazy for execution. Truss just had bad ideas.
A lot of words for "Brexit is a shitshow"
If you're unable to synthesize someone's argument in a way they would agree with, then you an ideologue.
The first rule of pb com club: you do not engage with Scott on the subject of Brexit.
The second rule of pb com club: you DO NOT engage with Scott on the subject of Brexit.
Brexit is merely taking back control. What you do with that control is what matters. May had the right ideas but screwed up the politics. Boris had the right ideas but was too lazy for execution. Truss just had bad ideas.
A lot of words for "Brexit is a shitshow"
If you're unable to synthesize someone's argument in a way they would agree with, then you an ideologue.
The first rule of pb com club: you do not engage with Scott on the subject of Brexit.
The second rule of pb com club: you DO NOT engage with Scott on the subject of Brexit.
Comments
The BoE is supposed to be ahead of the curve but they are 3 months behind due to 3 different mistakes made over the past year
As someone who left school in the early 80's when there were no jobs and who went through the recessions that followed, recessions normally cause mass unemployment, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening either here or in America.I think the FED in America have been desperate for a bit of umemployment to help their fight against inflation, and can't believe that it hasn't happened with their interest rate rises.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
Let the City run riot and crash the economy. The PFI scam (NB, Bart, this one does merit the word) which wasted lots of public money. Did 'famine feast' on public spending instead of a smooth controlled increase. Constantly agitating for the top job and destabilising TB.
But he was still a towering and benign politician cf what we've had the last few years.
'Constantly agitating for the top job and destabilising TB.'
That was the main problem as far as I was concerned.
He had no ideological beef with Blair; it was just a turf war.
1. Ukraine. There are those on the left and the Trumpist right who would like to see less US aid to Ukraine, but the major party candidates are mostly ignoring them. (I am not a fan of Joe Biden, but I think he has handled this about right, and deserves some credit for doing so.)
2. COVID. The states vary greatly in their deaths per million from COVID, with Republican governors generally doing worse than Democratic governors. (One important exception: Phil Scott of Vermont, an anti-Trump Republican.)
3. The incredible years-long increase in housing costs. In general, Republican states have done much better at providing affordable housing, because they have put fewer controls on where houses can be built. (Not so incidentally, many Democratic politicans have made big financial gains from those controls. For example, Washington state's junior senator probably has gained more than a million dollars from our growth management act -- which she sponsored when she was a member of the state legislature.)
rent
or
mortgage interest + maintenance.
In an ideal world they would be roughly equal.
It's just what *the public* mean by that and *central bankers, politicians and civil servants* mean by it is ever so slightly different...
Farage, Grimes, Hitchens, Steve Baker, Dan Hannan, Ben Bradley, Mike Graham, Shaun Bailey, Claire Fox, Calvin Robinson, Emily Hewertson, Esther Krakue, Mahyar Tousi, Jess Gill
(course most politicians pull a mental trick on themselves of equating national and party interest)
Frances Cairncross has a series on Wilson's reticence to devalue on BBC Sounds.
Brown added "bad for the other party" and put it far ahead of the other three.
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1588183242917691393
Labour lead cut by 2 points to 26.
Looks like a levelling out, which kind of makes sense.
Even if it was a payment that would have left you with an asset had you kept up with repayment, it is still a cost of living, that is is also an asset is neither here nor there. Cars are assets too but are measured as a cost from new car list prices and not the net change in cost to resale cost.
As @OnlyLivingBoy said CPI is there to measure cost, not assets, but then went on a confused tangent by getting tangled up viewing housing as an asset. Housing is an essential cost, fail to pay that cost and you have nowhere to live and are homeless. Any asset considerations should not be classed within inflation, the fact that costs have gone up or down is the inflationary factor.
Brown was a poor PM, if you can ignore his handling of the financial crisis.
After all, there's not a lot on the horizon to make the public look at the government more fondly.
It is really not good enough. There is still a failure to recognise the extent to which the Bank fell behind the curve and an almost perverse determination to fall even further behind in the future. Mr Bailey is clearly concerned that these increasing rates will deepen the coming recession. He is right about that but those are the consequences of failing to act timeously. He really has to go.
Grown-ups are back in charge of the country so the headlong rush to Labour has stopped and there is something of a return to normality, but there is a heck of a way to go before the Tories are competitive again, and obvious problems to encounter on the way.
Fwiw, I'm thinking of 30% plays 45% in the main contest at the GE. Plug that into Electoral Calculus and you get a decent rump of Tories with which to begin the rebuilding process. Factor in some tactical voting though, and it ain't so good.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892
In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
People have taken early retirement, others have been hugely displaced, others have died or are suffering long covid (or other sicknesses consequent on covid)
That’s an awful lot of people suddenly not seeking work
https://medium.com/britainelects/previewing-the-seven-council-by-elections-of-3rd-november-2022-c6b86f15be46
Bridge and Bridge Without, City of London common council, Ind defence: Lab, Indx4
Selsdon Vale and Forestdale, Croydon Council, C defence: C, L, LD, G, Ind
Salisbury St Paul’s, Wiltshire Council, C defence: C, L, LD
Longstanton, South Cambridgeshire Council, LDx2 defence:Cx2, Lx2, LDx2, Gx2, Ind
Chasetown, Lichfield Council, C defence: C, L
Eastwood, Nottinghamshire County Council, C defence: C, L, Ind
Buckie, Moray Council, LD defence: C, L, LD, SNP, Ind
This is especially true among more skilled professionals who previously worked 60+ hours per week. Lack of top, top talent will ve the main constraint on growth for Western economies. The UK in particular is well placed now to ramp up recruitment of the highly skilled, but the unwillingness to limit low skilled labour will cause an overall immigration backlash that makes it very hard to do.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Whatever you think of Brexit, lets not get into that, the simple fact is that Carney expressed himself forcefully and firmly and showed the Bank in way to be taken seriously.
Bailey with his half-hearted "fine we've done 0.75% but the market is wrong and we don't intend to do more" is showing the Bank to be weak, which makes the problem worse, which means the Bank will have to do more in the end. Its madness and he's just not good enough.
War Christmas is already in full swing in England's northernmost oblasts. Poppy shit everywhere.
All anybody will talk about is fucking Albanians - one armed bloke, woman in petrol station, bloke in caff. Whoever is pushing the Albanian Invasion line on socials is doing a very good job.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
Bridge and Bridge Without is a fanastic ward name. I like that it only extends to halfway across the bridge.
And the taxpayers are paying for them. To be kept warm and fed all winter in 4 star hotels
That’s a dazzlingly powerful meme (in a bad way) as people look at their own heating bills and their friends going to food banks. You could not devise a better advert (in a bad way) for the fucked upness of the channel crossings
Dura Ace may have changed his clock too far last Sunday.
To start with, did the Starmergasm only stop and level out when “ Grown-ups are back in charge of the country” last week, or weeks before? There was the drop, the change in labours lead, largely driven by media taking leave of their senses and describing everyday of a temporary run on the pound as though it was black Wednesday everyday, but labours lead was actually swelled by squeeze on green and Lib Dem totals is the truth.
Now the grown ups are in charge, so say, where is the pro Grown Ups movement? This poll you are commentating on says 24%, up 1%? Eh? Where’s the grown ups bounce?
Maybe they are not seen as grown ups because it’s only you who thinks they are grown ups. Maybe voters don’t see Sunak and his cabinet as being the fresh change they want, maybe they don’t see them as grown ups in charge of an economy, maybe they don’t see the enormous gulf from the clueless kiddies of Truss and Kwarteng to the all grown up Sunak, like you do?
Those clueless kiddies did actually offer a fresh approach from years of failure your “grown ups” represent - growth budgets, tax reduction. And they didn’t crash the economy, it’s a myth. The grown ups represent high tax, maxxed out credit and zero growth, because the only truth that should come to mind when you hear “Sunak” is money printed then sprayed around like confetti with no attempt at financial discipline at all.
You’ve got your thinkers and kiddies muddled up here.
Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.
They are therefore not an instructive guide to what would happen in an election.
Not right now, I mean, but sometime in the future. Maybe.
They need to change the facts on the ground. Rhetoric alone doesn't cut it anymore.
Yes, the Liberati will howl like a wounded animal from the rooftops. But they'll do that anyway.
Where are you getting your info from if not from there?
The second rule of pb com club: you DO NOT engage with Scott on the subject of Brexit.