Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sunak does appear to be helping a CON recovery in the polls – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 9 in General
imageSunak does appear to be helping a CON recovery in the polls – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    First, and wake me up when he's reclaimed 20%.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    I second that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.

    I’m still laughing at you. Sunak is not associated in voters minds with fresh start and economic recovery, he’s associated with a Tory Party whose wrecked the country.

    Fact is, The average Tory poll has to be around 27% an abysmal honeymoon bounce considering a previous leader and budget bounced it down there.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.

    This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,

    1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.

    2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.

    3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.

    4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285

    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.

    I’m still laughing at you. Sunak is not associated in voters minds with fresh start and economic recovery, he’s associated with a Tory Party whose wrecked the country.

    Fact is, The average Tory poll has to be around 27% an abysmal honeymoon bounce considering a previous leader and budget bounced it down there.

    Ah, the Tories reaching 30% has seen a moving of the goalposts, I see.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    Driver said:

    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.

    I’m still laughing at you. Sunak is not associated in voters minds with fresh start and economic recovery, he’s associated with a Tory Party whose wrecked the country.

    Fact is, The average Tory poll has to be around 27% an abysmal honeymoon bounce considering a previous leader and budget bounced it down there.

    Ah, the Tories reaching 30% has seen a moving of the goalposts, I see.
    Goalposts where they always been for us psephologicalists. 30% in just one poll, average still a few below that. No one will claim Tory’s now polling in thirties on strength of just one poll would they? Or you might as well say they are on 24.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197

    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.

    I’m still laughing at you. Sunak is not associated in voters minds with fresh start and economic recovery, he’s associated with a Tory Party whose wrecked the country.

    Fact is, The average Tory poll has to be around 27% an abysmal honeymoon bounce considering a previous leader and budget bounced it down there.

    Fine. You still laugh.

    I shall enjoy your grovelling apology - as I'm sure you're an honest and honourable individual - when I'm eventually vindicated.

    More likely of course, that you try and wiggle out if it, and say that was always going to happen anyway, and not what you really meant or ever meant, and you were right (at all times) all along but I'll trust in your world-leading integrity 👍
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473

    Driver said:

    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.

    I’m still laughing at you. Sunak is not associated in voters minds with fresh start and economic recovery, he’s associated with a Tory Party whose wrecked the country.

    Fact is, The average Tory poll has to be around 27% an abysmal honeymoon bounce considering a previous leader and budget bounced it down there.

    Ah, the Tories reaching 30% has seen a moving of the goalposts, I see.
    Goalposts where they always been for us psephologicalists. 30% in just one poll, average still a few below that. No one will claim Tory’s now polling in thirties on strength of just one poll would they? Or you might as well say they are on 24.
    You seem to have coined a word. Watchers of polls?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197

    Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.

    This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,

    1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.

    2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.

    3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.

    4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?

    Yes, throwing the doors open and charging nothing certainly does smash through the business model of the people smugglers.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    "The boats" will be a deciding issue in an election (probably) in two years' time? Think what was happening two years ago and think how many unexpected things have happened since then. And think how many other things we know are going to happen in the near future. I doubt "Manston" will mean much to many people by then. I have hopes not many people will remember Suella Braverman by then either.
  • He's basically getting the Tory core vote back on board but winning back swing voters is going to be a much tougher task. Johnson and Truss have done a lot of damage to the Tory brand, and voters won't thank him for higher taxes and public spending cuts even if his predecessor owes much of the blame.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Chris said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    "The boats" will be a deciding issue in an election (probably) in two years' time? Think what was happening two years ago and think how many unexpected things have happened since then. And think how many other things we know are going to happen in the near future. I doubt "Manston" will mean much to many people by then. I have hopes not many people will remember Suella Braverman by then either.
    Oh yes, it's wedge and cements the centre-right coalition. Plenty will vote Tory who fear Labour would undo it - which they probably will - if, and only if, Sunak fixes it.

    Those who don't understand this are probably Liberati who don't get it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,625
    edited November 3

    Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.

    This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,

    1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.

    2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.

    3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.

    4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?

    1. I don't believe a single word of what is coming out of the Home Office on this issue. If 70% of these people are succeeding in their asylum claims, that's a scandal in itself, and hardly surprising that asylum is a chosen route for so many. The Home Secretary doesn't seem to believe it either.

    2. The evidence shows that increasing levels of wealth in developing countries leads to more economic migration away from them, not less, as smartphones and the internet open up new possibilities. Stability would be nice, but it's not within our gift. We'll do whatever the US decides; if that includes bombing AN other Middle Eastern country, that's what will happen. And it's maths.

    3. Safe, legal routes, YES, but the application, processing, and validation of the asylum claim must be done in situ before they get on that safe legal route. Otherwise it's just inviting a stampede.

    4. We want the people traffickers to stop because we want the people to stop. Your solution is like saying we should get the police to stab everyone on sight because it would put all the criminal stabbers out of business. It would, but all it would do is replace freelancers with a taxpayer funded service. What on earth would be the point.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,293

    Chris said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    "The boats" will be a deciding issue in an election (probably) in two years' time? Think what was happening two years ago and think how many unexpected things have happened since then. And think how many other things we know are going to happen in the near future. I doubt "Manston" will mean much to many people by then. I have hopes not many people will remember Suella Braverman by then either.
    Oh yes, it's wedge and cements the centre-right coalition. Plenty will vote Tory who fear Labour would undo it - which they probably will - if, and only if, Sunak fixes it.

    Those who don't understand this are probably Liberati who don't get it.
    But we can play the piano.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    Sunak is not Truss. He’s relatively sane and charismatic. He will bounce.

    But get beyond that and you’re reminded he was Boris’s right hand man, presided over much of the mess and has no vision. We’re in for a bleak couple of years.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    If you were SKS wouldn't you now be considering going off to write your memoirs?

    What's he got to look forwards to? A completely over-spend system, a public that thinks more spending is good, and (Apart from Reeves) no help whatsoever.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046
    30-47 is election winning in Novara Media terms.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,293

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    For which he needs a skilful and pragmatic deal with France. As you used to say yourself before - I now note - going a bit Daily Express today.
  • WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285

    Driver said:

    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.

    I’m still laughing at you. Sunak is not associated in voters minds with fresh start and economic recovery, he’s associated with a Tory Party whose wrecked the country.

    Fact is, The average Tory poll has to be around 27% an abysmal honeymoon bounce considering a previous leader and budget bounced it down there.

    Ah, the Tories reaching 30% has seen a moving of the goalposts, I see.
    Goalposts where they always been for us psephologicalists. 30% in just one poll, average still a few below that. No one will claim Tory’s now polling in thirties on strength of just one poll would they? Or you might as well say they are on 24.
    Last week you were assuring us that Sunak had reached the peak of his bounce, and failing to poll 30% even once was a sign of sure disaster.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145
    Eabhal said:
    Mm, rats. Will bring back happy memories of life afloat with the RN, I suspect.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    "The boats" will be a deciding issue in an election (probably) in two years' time? Think what was happening two years ago and think how many unexpected things have happened since then. And think how many other things we know are going to happen in the near future. I doubt "Manston" will mean much to many people by then. I have hopes not many people will remember Suella Braverman by then either.
    Oh yes, it's wedge and cements the centre-right coalition. Plenty will vote Tory who fear Labour would undo it - which they probably will - if, and only if, Sunak fixes it.

    Those who don't understand this are probably Liberati who don't get it.
    But we can play the piano.
    Got my Yamaha synth upstairs.

    I like to play me Hans Zimmer.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    kinabalu said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    For which he needs a skilful and pragmatic deal with France. As you used to say yourself before - I now note - going a bit Daily Express today.
    I think both are needed.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,625
    kinabalu said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    For which he needs a skilful and pragmatic deal with France. As you used to say yourself before - I now note - going a bit Daily Express today.
    He doesn't. France aren't doing anything wrong. If these people were crossing the UK to get to Sweden, why on earth would we, against their will, spend time, money, and resources trying to trap them in the UK? We wouldn't. The only possible deal that we could do with France would be to pay France everything that we currently pay in the UK to house and secure these people, plus a healthy surcharge. And French hotels paying tax in France get 'the benefit'. It would be an absurd waste of money simply to avoid seeing boats on the news.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,293

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
  • kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197

    kinabalu said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    For which he needs a skilful and pragmatic deal with France. As you used to say yourself before - I now note - going a bit Daily Express today.
    He doesn't. France aren't doing anything wrong. If these people were crossing the UK to get to Sweden, why on earth would we, against their will, spend time, money, and resources trying to trap them in the UK? We wouldn't. The only possible deal that we could do with France would be to pay France everything that we currently pay in the UK to house and secure these people, plus a healthy surcharge. And French hotels paying tax in France get 'the benefit'. It would be an absurd waste of money simply to avoid seeing boats on the news.
    If that were true, though, why would France be interested in taking a couple of hundred million to stop 40-50% of them?

    Because they know that if they can't get to Britain then those that come to France - and loiter there indefinitely in high numbers - would drop drastically.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    kle4 said:

    A recovery was surely inevitable from sub 20 scores!

    But bad times are coming.

    But as we have learned on PB today Sunak is manfully attempting to unravel the holy mess he inherited from his predecessor Gordon Brown (Alistair Darling doesn't even get a mention).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,625

    kinabalu said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    For which he needs a skilful and pragmatic deal with France. As you used to say yourself before - I now note - going a bit Daily Express today.
    I think both are needed.
    The problem is not France! The problem is that our leaky immigration/asylum system, generous benefit and health system, underground economy, and things we can't help like our language, are making us a magnet for economic migration. That is not France's fault - they're just on the way.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145

    kle4 said:

    A recovery was surely inevitable from sub 20 scores!

    But bad times are coming.

    But as we have learned on PB today Sunak is manfully attempting to unravel the holy mess he inherited from his predecessor Gordon Brown (Alistair Darling doesn't even get a mention).
    And who was the chap before the chap before the chap before Mr Sunak?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    Alice paid off her mortgage in 2000. Bob is a council tenant. Carla's area is improving and her rent is going up. Derek bought last year on a fixed-rate mortgage. Not one of them will have their housing costs primarily affected by recent developments in average rents or house prices. To the extent that authorities can control house prices, it will not be using a weapon for inflation which was near-zero in most of the economy until recently. If asset valuations are rising while real economy prices are static, that's not a story of broad-based price rises. Contrast to today, which is certainly a story of general competition for consumption across the board amid supply shortages.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,625

    kinabalu said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    For which he needs a skilful and pragmatic deal with France. As you used to say yourself before - I now note - going a bit Daily Express today.
    He doesn't. France aren't doing anything wrong. If these people were crossing the UK to get to Sweden, why on earth would we, against their will, spend time, money, and resources trying to trap them in the UK? We wouldn't. The only possible deal that we could do with France would be to pay France everything that we currently pay in the UK to house and secure these people, plus a healthy surcharge. And French hotels paying tax in France get 'the benefit'. It would be an absurd waste of money simply to avoid seeing boats on the news.
    If that were true, though, why would France be interested in taking a couple of hundred million to stop 40-50% of them?

    Because they know that if they can't get to Britain then those that come to France - and loiter there indefinitely in high numbers - would drop drastically.
    They would take the money, and not stop them. And I wouldn't blame them. Do we get a refund or something if it doesn't work, or a gallic shrug?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    EPG said:

    30-47 is election winning in Novara Media terms.

    Fool!
    Are you such a Libtarded Liberati that you can’t perceive the truth?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285

    kle4 said:

    A recovery was surely inevitable from sub 20 scores!

    But bad times are coming.

    But as we have learned on PB today Sunak is manfully attempting to unravel the holy mess he inherited from his predecessor Gordon Brown (Alistair Darling doesn't even get a mention).
    Insofar as the Brownian consensus was being argued to still exist, Sunak was being described as being part of the problem, not part of the solution.
  • MPartridgeMPartridge Posts: 151
    Advice appreciated - US Midterms

    How much do people reckon Roe vs Wade is going to have an impact coming up?

    Especially amongst young who are more politically motivated but generally underrepresented in polling due to normally lower turn outs.

    Could the Dems hold onto more seats than expected as a result?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    Driver said:

    kle4 said:

    A recovery was surely inevitable from sub 20 scores!

    But bad times are coming.

    But as we have learned on PB today Sunak is manfully attempting to unravel the holy mess he inherited from his predecessor Gordon Brown (Alistair Darling doesn't even get a mention).
    Insofar as the Brownian consensus was being argued to still exist, Sunak was being described as being part of the problem, not part of the solution.
    The PB Tory herd used to be fairly consistent on this point but have undergone yet another transformation.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,932
    US polls are all over the place.

    Georgia Senate - three polls out today (all fieldwork up to yesterday)

    Survey USA - Warnock (D) +6
    Echelon - Walker (R) +4
    Remington - Walker (R) +4

    But note Survey USA is A rated pollster per 538. Remington is B rated, Echelon B/C.

    Literally anything could happen!
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 532
    edited November 3

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    Make immigration the main issue and the Tories will win the election with an increased majority.

    If they "let" a boat sink there will be a steely purse-lipped chorus of "It was their choice to put to sea". Letting the migrants die will be seen as bravery. A single focus-grouped phrase in the mouth of the PM or home secretary or minister for the immigration crisis, shocking to the left, centre, and centre-right but balm for Alf Garnett and what used to be the "red" wall, and the Tories will have the election in the bag.

    Do you really think immigration can climb to become a main issue, big enough to achieve NOM but not THE main issue, big enough for a win?

    Momentum.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.

    Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.

    And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,487
    Eabhal said:
    If you're not rememberancing AT LEAST this hard you hate this country.
  • Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    I've moved house more often than every five years across my life. Lived in more houses than I've owned fridge freezers that's for sure.

    But we don't need anecdotal stories or data, we have actual real data. Housing cost as a proportion of household budgets is a known figure, that should be its weighting. Not spin it to what you or I want, but what is actual fact.

    Housing costs are a known proportion of expenditure, and their change in price levels is also known. Don't try and spin it for certain cases, go with actual weighting that it really is. Which is double the CPI figure.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145
    edited November 3
    Dura_Ace said:

    Eabhal said:
    If you're not rememberancing AT LEAST this hard you hate this country.
    I must confuse them. I an happy to pop some dosh in the tin when the nice and horribly young cadets ask politely, but CBA to wear the poppy, so I decline it.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    I've moved house more often than every five years across my life. Lived in more houses than I've owned fridge freezers that's for sure.

    But we don't need anecdotal stories or data, we have actual real data. Housing cost as a proportion of household budgets is a known figure, that should be its weighting. Not spin it to what you or I want, but what is actual fact.

    Housing costs are a known proportion of expenditure, and their change in price levels is also known. Don't try and spin it for certain cases, go with actual weighting that it really is. Which is double the CPI figure.
    Yes, but you don't *demolish* it or find it is so degraded that it s only good for the lesser orders when you have finished. Unless you are a rock star or a mythical Albanian neighbour.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    I've moved house more often than every five years across my life. Lived in more houses than I've owned fridge freezers that's for sure.

    But we don't need anecdotal stories or data, we have actual real data. Housing cost as a proportion of household budgets is a known figure, that should be its weighting. Not spin it to what you or I want, but what is actual fact.

    Housing costs are a known proportion of expenditure, and their change in price levels is also known. Don't try and spin it for certain cases, go with actual weighting that it really is. Which is double the CPI figure.
    What's the change in housing costs for people who own their houses?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,989
    @GiorgiaMeloni
    Congratulations-Mazel Tov to @netanyahu for the electoral success. Ready to strengthen our friendship and our bilateral relations, to better face our common challenges.


    https://twitter.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/1588239403717050368
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,987
    edited November 3
    EPG said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    Alice paid off her mortgage in 2000. Bob is a council tenant. Carla's area is improving and her rent is going up. Derek bought last year on a fixed-rate mortgage. Not one of them will have their housing costs primarily affected by recent developments in average rents or house prices. To the extent that authorities can control house prices, it will not be using a weapon for inflation which was near-zero in most of the economy until recently. If asset valuations are rising while real economy prices are static, that's not a story of broad-based price rises. Contrast to today, which is certainly a story of general competition for consumption across the board amid supply shortages.
    We have 67 million people in this country, not just Alice, Bob, Carla and Derek, there's also Emma who is buying a new build and Fred is trying to save a deposit.

    Some might not have seen their prices rise on the average amount, some might have seen it go up by much more than average, but the average citizen has on average seen the average change, which is why averages exist.

    If housing costs come down as a share of expenditure their weighting should fall accordingly, if it goes up, it should fall accordingly. But it shouldn't be weighted half the actual OBR figure because of some edge cases.
  • EPG said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    I've moved house more often than every five years across my life. Lived in more houses than I've owned fridge freezers that's for sure.

    But we don't need anecdotal stories or data, we have actual real data. Housing cost as a proportion of household budgets is a known figure, that should be its weighting. Not spin it to what you or I want, but what is actual fact.

    Housing costs are a known proportion of expenditure, and their change in price levels is also known. Don't try and spin it for certain cases, go with actual weighting that it really is. Which is double the CPI figure.
    What's the change in housing costs for people who own their houses?
    People who own their houses are in the average. Why do we need their figure specifically? What's the figure for those who don't?
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    I've moved house more often than every five years across my life. Lived in more houses than I've owned fridge freezers that's for sure.

    But we don't need anecdotal stories or data, we have actual real data. Housing cost as a proportion of household budgets is a known figure, that should be its weighting. Not spin it to what you or I want, but what is actual fact.

    Housing costs are a known proportion of expenditure, and their change in price levels is also known. Don't try and spin it for certain cases, go with actual weighting that it really is. Which is double the CPI figure.
    Yes, but you don't *demolish* it or find it is so degraded that it s only good for the lesser orders when you have finished. Unless you are a rock star or a mythical Albanian neighbour.
    What difference does that make? Its still in costs, which is why it appears in people's budget.

    Second hand cars, or fridges, or washing machines, or plenty else can be bought, but we still have their prices in CPI based on what they cost and weighted based on expenditure. But CPI downweights housing because it excludes lots of housing costs and is based primarily on homeowner data instead of average data.

    Include average data and the problem is resolved.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    Yesterday’s thread on the South East was a new low for PB, exceeded only by today’s thread on how to treat housing costs in inflation measures.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    edited November 3
    DJ41 said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    Make immigration the main issue and the Tories will win the election with an increased majority.

    If they "let" a boat sink there will be a steely purse-lipped chorus of "It was their choice to put to sea". Letting the migrants die will be seen as bravery. A single focus-grouped phrase in the mouth of the PM or home secretary or minister for the immigration crisis, shocking to the left, centre, and centre-right but balm for Alf Garnett and what used to be the "red" wall, and the Tories will have the election in the bag.

    Do you really think immigration can climb to become a main issue, big enough to achieve NOM but not THE main issue, big enough for a win?

    Momentum.
    In calmer economic times "strafing" the ribs would be an act of political genius. I am not so sure it compensates for losing.one's job and having the house and the Evoque repossessed. Unless of course Suella can demonstrate that your job, home and car all went south as a result of "illegal immigrants".
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,541
    edited November 3
    There seems to be an assumption among our friends on the right that the "boats issue" and associated problems (Albanians, hotels, Rwanda, Manston etc.) will play well for the Tories as a wedge issue. I'm not so sure. The abject failure of first Patel and now Braverman to prevent these issues worsening, rather than improving, is striking. Such abject failure on their "number one priority" thus far doesn't bode well for future success.

    It may well be that Starmer/Cooper end up being perceived as being more likely to find pragmatic and, yes, tough solutions that could actually work, without having to resort to the fatuous dog whistles of the Tories and their fellow Faragist travellers. People are paying very little attention to the plan that Cooper has proposed.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,987
    edited November 3

    Yesterday’s thread on the South East was a new low for PB, exceeded only by today’s thread on how to treat housing costs in inflation measures.

    Prices for a new build in 1997 was £71k, in 2022 its £292k, yet supposedly inflation was "low" in that time.

    It may seem petty to you, but I'm sure the millions of people struggling to pay their rent or save a deposit as prices have risen and risen and risen its anything but petty.

    If average figures were used, then using edge cases to argue against it would be silly. But they're not. The OBR says housing and energy are literally over double what CPI weights them at.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    I reckon I've worked out a way Rejoin happens, but I'm not sure the UTOA Remainers will like it.

    It's Brexit in reverse: the EU becomes much more hardline on immigration and asylum, stopping anyone coming in, and the Brits vote "in" to override the innane brain dead Wokery of their own established parties of government who import this reflexive crap across the anglosphere from America.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    There seems to be an assumption among our friends on the right that the "boats issue" and associated problems (Albanians, hotels, Rwanda, Manston etc.) will play well for the Tories as a wedge issue. I'm not so sure. The abject failure of first Patel and now Braverman to prevent these issues worsening, rather than improving, is striking. Such abject failure one their "number one priority" this far doesn't bode well for future success.

    It may well be that Starmer/Cooper end up being perceived as being more likely to find pragmatic and, yes, tough solutions that could actually work, without having to resort to the fatuous dog whistles of the Tories and their fellow Faragist travellers. People are paying very little attention to the plan that Cooper has proposed.

    Quite. The smack of firm gumment dividend depends on actually flying planeloads of weeping persecution victims to actual Rwanda, not on spending 140m on failing to send them there.

    Also this issue will pale into non existence as winter exacerbates the NHS crisis and stops the boats crossing.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Good evening,

    It's now 55/45 wrt the Senate election.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,301
    Chris said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    "The boats" will be a deciding issue in an election (probably) in two years' time? Think what was happening two years ago and think how many unexpected things have happened since then. And think how many other things we know are going to happen in the near future. I doubt "Manston" will mean much to many people by then. I have hopes not many people will remember Suella Braverman by then either.
    For what it's worth, no-one in my circle of friends is discussing the boat people. No-one.

    They are all discussing house prices - homeowners will be greatly displeased by the likely impending crash, and while some people will be eagerly awaiting a dip, those aren't likely to be Conservative voters who, by and large, are already old and own their own properties. Boat people are a distant worry when the value of your main asset plummets 20% and the cost of your mortgage rises by several hundred pounds a month.

    Fwiw, they are also seriously discussing the likelihood of rolling blackouts this winter. If that happens, plus a series of public sector strikes, the "winter of discontent" narrative is going to kill off any Sunak bounce and Lab majority nailed on in two years.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924

    Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.

    This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,

    1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.

    2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.

    3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.

    4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?

    TL;DR: “let them all in”
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250

    the Brits vote "in" to override the innane brain dead Wokery of their own established parties of government

    "We want to do crazy shit and the EU won't let us" was certainly a key campaign message

    So we left, and the Tories we able to do CRAZY SHIT, and we all got royally screwed.

    So yes, a campaign of "Stop these stupid fuckers being able to do it again" has a decent chance of success.

    Before Brexit we could vote Dan Hannan out of office.

    Now we are stuck with him for life, but maybe we could neuter him...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    edited November 3

    EPG said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    Alice paid off her mortgage in 2000. Bob is a council tenant. Carla's area is improving and her rent is going up. Derek bought last year on a fixed-rate mortgage. Not one of them will have their housing costs primarily affected by recent developments in average rents or house prices. To the extent that authorities can control house prices, it will not be using a weapon for inflation which was near-zero in most of the economy until recently. If asset valuations are rising while real economy prices are static, that's not a story of broad-based price rises. Contrast to today, which is certainly a story of general competition for consumption across the board amid supply shortages.
    We have 67 million people in this country, not just Alice, Bob, Carla and Derek, there's also Emma who is buying a new build and Fred is trying to save a deposit.

    Some might not have seen their prices rise on the average amount, some might have seen it go up by much more than average, but the average citizen has on average seen the average change, which is why averages exist.

    If housing costs come down as a share of expenditure their weighting should fall accordingly, if it goes up, it should fall accordingly. But it shouldn't be weighted half the actual OBR figure because of some edge cases.
    Have you blinded me with science, or baffled me with bulls***? I'm not sure.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    EPG said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    I've moved house more often than every five years across my life. Lived in more houses than I've owned fridge freezers that's for sure.

    But we don't need anecdotal stories or data, we have actual real data. Housing cost as a proportion of household budgets is a known figure, that should be its weighting. Not spin it to what you or I want, but what is actual fact.

    Housing costs are a known proportion of expenditure, and their change in price levels is also known. Don't try and spin it for certain cases, go with actual weighting that it really is. Which is double the CPI figure.
    What's the change in housing costs for people who own their houses?
    People who own their houses are in the average. Why do we need their figure specifically? What's the figure for those who don't?
    Nice graph in here, Barty, which shows that it makes virtually zero difference

    https://actuaries.blog.gov.uk/2021/08/23/measures-of-price-inflation-rpi-cpi-and-cpih/

    ansd as a bonus explains why the difference between CPI, CPIH and RPI is not part of the great anti-Bart conspiracy.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    edited November 3
    Andy_JS said:

    Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

    Which sort of sums up the problem with relying on it.

    Edit - and that figure is worse than it looks, because yesterday we were exporting power, today we're importing it.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,487

    Yesterday’s thread on the South East was a new low for PB,

    You don't know what is was like, man. You weren't there.

    *stares off into distance
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.

    Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.

    And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
    You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.

    image

    Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Dura_Ace said:

    Yesterday’s thread on the South East was a new low for PB,

    You don't know what is was like, man. You weren't there.

    *stares off into distance
    And with a sigh, gone.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,551

    There seems to be an assumption among our friends on the right that the "boats issue" and associated problems (Albanians, hotels, Rwanda, Manston etc.) will play well for the Tories as a wedge issue. I'm not so sure. The abject failure of first Patel and now Braverman to prevent these issues worsening, rather than improving, is striking. Such abject failure on their "number one priority" thus far doesn't bode well for future success.

    It may well be that Starmer/Cooper end up being perceived as being more likely to find pragmatic and, yes, tough solutions that could actually work, without having to resort to the fatuous dog whistles of the Tories and their fellow Faragist travellers. People are paying very little attention to the plan that Cooper has proposed.

    It works as an issue for the Tories because,
    1. It distracts from how they've managed to wreck the economy.
    2. It distracts from how they've managed to wreck public services.
    3. Lots of lefties - including myself - won't be able to help ourselves and will want to talk more about our compassion for refugees than about fixing the perceived problem.

    Will it make enough of a difference to swing the election and prevent defeat, or will it only make a marginal difference and save a handful of seats? I don't honestly know, but it's a test for Labour and flunking it will have consequences.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467

    I've been saying this for some time, and been laughed at for some time.

    Anyone looking at the 6.00 News will be hysterical! Particularly if they don't fancy the worst recession since the last century and agree with the Governor of the Bank of England that the 'Mini Budget' has caused lasting damage to the UK's international reputation.

    But I admire your compacency.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001dslq/bbc-news-at-six-03112022
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    Andy_JS said:

    Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

    Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.

    Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.

    And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
    You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.

    image

    Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
    Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote

    "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."

    Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,786

    Andy_JS said:

    Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

    Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.
    Pity about the lack of wind for electricity, but it was great for collecting fallen leaves.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Scott_xP said:

    the Brits vote "in" to override the innane brain dead Wokery of their own established parties of government

    "We want to do crazy shit and the EU won't let us" was certainly a key campaign message

    So we left, and the Tories we able to do CRAZY SHIT, and we all got royally screwed.

    So yes, a campaign of "Stop these stupid fuckers being able to do it again" has a decent chance of success.

    Before Brexit we could vote Dan Hannan out of office.

    Now we are stuck with him for life, but maybe we could neuter him...
    ..



  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,551

    Andy_JS said:

    Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

    Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.
    The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Andy_JS said:

    Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

    Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.
    The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.
    Nice picture here

    https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

    Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,987
    edited November 3
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.

    Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.

    And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
    You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.

    image

    Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
    Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote

    "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."

    Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
    I was completely right. RPI does include housing.

    RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.

    If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited November 3
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    Norwich. My fine city x
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,541

    There seems to be an assumption among our friends on the right that the "boats issue" and associated problems (Albanians, hotels, Rwanda, Manston etc.) will play well for the Tories as a wedge issue. I'm not so sure. The abject failure of first Patel and now Braverman to prevent these issues worsening, rather than improving, is striking. Such abject failure on their "number one priority" thus far doesn't bode well for future success.

    It may well be that Starmer/Cooper end up being perceived as being more likely to find pragmatic and, yes, tough solutions that could actually work, without having to resort to the fatuous dog whistles of the Tories and their fellow Faragist travellers. People are paying very little attention to the plan that Cooper has proposed.

    It works as an issue for the Tories because,
    1. It distracts from how they've managed to wreck the economy.
    2. It distracts from how they've managed to wreck public services.
    3. Lots of lefties - including myself - won't be able to help ourselves and will want to talk more about our compassion for refugees than about fixing the perceived problem.

    Will it make enough of a difference to swing the election and prevent defeat, or will it only make a marginal difference and save a handful of seats? I don't honestly know, but it's a test for Labour and flunking it will have consequences.
    Maybe. But at some point doesn't it stop working as an issue for the Tories? Zero fights to Rwanda. Zero reduction in boat crossings. Slow or no progress in speeding up asylum applications. At some point, "judge us on our record" is going to come into play, and it won't look pretty.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,473

    Advice appreciated - US Midterms

    How much do people reckon Roe vs Wade is going to have an impact coming up?

    Especially amongst young who are more politically motivated but generally underrepresented in polling due to normally lower turn outs.

    Could the Dems hold onto more seats than expected as a result?

    Impact of Roe v Wade repeal on US midterms is bigger than a breadbox, but not as much as giant meteor strike.

    Whatever the scale, it's being counter-balanced (and perhaps more) by impact of rising cost of living, which is also affecting younger voters, esp. young families.

  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    Norwich. My fine city x
    A-ha !!!
  • Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

    Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.

    Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.

    And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
    You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.

    image

    Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
    Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote

    "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."

    Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
    I was completely right. RPI does include housing.

    RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.

    If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
    But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.

    Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

    Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

    Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet. ;)
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

    Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

    In its dreams. It's geographically pretty much in Holland.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 532
    edited November 3
    kyf_100 said:

    Chris said:

    Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.

    Heard it here first.

    "The boats" will be a deciding issue in an election (probably) in two years' time? Think what was happening two years ago and think how many unexpected things have happened since then. And think how many other things we know are going to happen in the near future. I doubt "Manston" will mean much to many people by then. I have hopes not many people will remember Suella Braverman by then either.
    For what it's worth, no-one in my circle of friends is discussing the boat people. No-one.

    They are all discussing house prices - homeowners will be greatly displeased by the likely impending crash, and while some people will be eagerly awaiting a dip, those aren't likely to be Conservative voters who, by and large, are already old and own their own properties. Boat people are a distant worry when the value of your main asset plummets 20% and the cost of your mortgage rises by several hundred pounds a month.

    Fwiw, they are also seriously discussing the likelihood of rolling blackouts this winter. If that happens, plus a series of public sector strikes, the "winter of discontent" narrative is going to kill off any Sunak bounce and Lab majority nailed on in two years.
    Many who own their homes without any moneylenders owning charges on the titles don't care if prices fall and if they also have a fair bit of money in the bank (not necessarily being minted but just say 1/4 or 1/2 of the current value of their house) they may even welcome a fall because then they'll be able to buy a nicer house or move to a nicer area. A fall in the value of their main asset is often not the way they look at it (if they've got any sense anyway), because other assets they might buy with the money they would get from selling that asset will also have fallen in price.

    And those who are in this financial position are by no means all Tory voters or all aged 50+.

    Personally I would love a house price crash and house prices absolutely to break the floor (it's about time!), but tbf most of my neighbours probably have an attitude similar to your friends'.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    Norwich. My fine city x
    Hartlepool of the South!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

    Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

    Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet. ;)
    Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?

    Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,541
    edited November 3

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    Norwich. My fine city x
    I spent critical years in Norwich - 14-18; 'O' and 'A' levels. Rapidly went downhill academically and in other ways. I blame it on the Norwich folk, especially teachers, not appreciating my earthy northern humour. Strange place. I liked it more when I returned later on to visit my parents, who stayed there until their demise.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

    Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

    In its dreams. It's geographically pretty much in Holland.
    That's just a Fens if.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Roger said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    Norwich. My fine city x
    Hartlepool of the South!
    Englands second city until the knobby industrial revolution nonsense.
    Will be the capital of course of the restored Kingdom of the Wuffingas
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 532
    edited November 3
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    "I'm not racist, but we're close-knit. And hotel dwellers are different, aren't they?"

    "Don't want to be judgemental" - lol.

    How fitting that "close-knit" rhymes with "full of sh*t".

    Absolutely classic xenophobia.

    I'm not sure what kind of estate that person is talking about, but I've lived on council estates and also estates of privately-owned houses and none of them have been particularly close-knit. Perhaps about two generations ago they may have been.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    Roger said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    Norwich. My fine city x
    Hartlepool of the South!
    Englands second city until the knobby industrial revolution nonsense.
    Will be the capital of course of the restored Kingdom of the Wuffingas
    Good to see you have some woolly thinking in place on the subject.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Norwich resident welcomes migrants

    "This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

    "I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

    Norwich. My fine city x
    Hartlepool of the South!
    Englands second city until the knobby industrial revolution nonsense.
    Will be the capital of course of the restored Kingdom of the Wuffingas
    Good to see you have some woolly thinking in place on the subject.
    I am a somewhat lonelier East Anglian Nat than id like
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,553
    MikeL said:

    US polls are all over the place.

    Georgia Senate - three polls out today (all fieldwork up to yesterday)

    Survey USA - Warnock (D) +6
    Echelon - Walker (R) +4
    Remington - Walker (R) +4

    But note Survey USA is A rated pollster per 538. Remington is B rated, Echelon B/C.

    Literally anything could happen!

    There does seem to be a lot of variance especially in terms of how much each candidate polls with the black community there. This is especially important in Georgia where this is over a third of the population .
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,987
    edited November 3
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

    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.
    What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
    Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

    Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

    Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

    Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
    How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
    As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

    It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
    You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
    The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.

    Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.

    And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
    You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.

    image

    Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
    Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote

    "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."

    Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
    I was completely right. RPI does include housing.

    RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.

    If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
    But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.

    Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.
    Don't be a pedantic ignoramus, RPIX is a form of RPI and the inflation figure has typically been referred to as RPI even if it was technically RPIX. And it includes house prices (via depreciation), even if it excludes MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem.

    There is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, which is why I didn't propose replacing CPI with HPI, but rather weighting it properly, but it is not just a part of household expenditure but on average the biggest part of household expenditure which is why it should be there and properly weighted. Are you familiar with the concept of weighting and understand what it means?

    If housing and energy make up 28% of household expenditure, it should be weighted to 28% within CPI, not down-weighted to half that. If for some reason housing and energy proportionately cost less in an era of high-inflation, then the weightings should adapt and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately since CPI for no good reason excluded housing inflation and downweights housing and energy to half its real weighting, that makes CPI data completely flawed.

    But how about you say what it should be instead? If housing and energy are 28% of expenditure on average, then should housing and energy in your eyes be weighted to

    A: 14%
    B: 28%
This discussion has been closed.