Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?
Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
What was interesting is that the Macmillan Government then introduced legislation to allow peers to renounce their titles within a certain period. This was intended to remedy the injustice to Tony Benn, but it also had the effect of then allowing both Home and Hailsham to do the same and thus become viable contenders for the Tory Leadership in November 1963. A law with unintended consequences....
The irony being that Tony Benn's son and heir is now a hereditary Labour peer. Bob's yer uncle etc. etc.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?
Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
What was interesting is that the Macmillan Government then introduced legislation to allow peers to renounce their titles within a certain period. This was intended to remedy the injustice to Tony Benn, but it also had the effect of then allowing both Home and Hailsham to do the same and thus become viable contenders for the Tory Leadership in November 1963. A law with unintended consequences....
AIUI that was actually an amendment tabled in the House. It was originally a bill that would allow peers to disclaim their in a set period from October 1964 to avoid by-elections, but instead it was changed to one year from the date the act came into force.
It did have that consequence, of course, but as Macmillan seems to have intended to fight the next election as leader at the time of the act's passing that really was in all ways an unintended consequence.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
He's like a pound shop Major.
However I don't like Labour's north sea oil and gas policies one bit* - this is the biggest barrier between me and a Lab vote at the next GE currently.
* I note he's managed to annoy those on the other side of me (Pump it all) this morning with the 'Won't oppose Rosebank?' too.
Labour's economic policies usually lead to ruin.
Don't even get me started on the school fees policy.
The irony is I actually support the policy, when state schools are struggling it is wrong to fund private schools through the tax system but Labour's sums do not add and I think they've spent the proceeds five times over.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
15% of a debt that is 2x Income is different to 6% of a debt that is 8x Income though.
If prices go back to a house price to income ratio of the 80s/early 90s then that'd be great. Will mean some huge negative equity for many, but oh well, not the end of the world.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
I am amazed that they have annouced it, I can see no upside in it as a vote winning policy. SKS needs Scotland and it looks like he has annouced a policy to get rid of a large employer and a big money earner for Scotland. A mad decison.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
Listening to Starmer this morning I thought "this sounds like wishful nonsense". He seemed to imply that GB Energy would sell energy below market prices, or alternately subsidise the purchase. It didn't sound like GB Energy would be run in a conventional way.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
In relative terms people borrow more now so the impact is similar , you also have to factor in the impacts of the current cost of living .
The amount of people impacted though will be much lower as more have longer term fixed rates .
Problem for the Tories is that renters already vote strongly for Labour and you only need a minority of mortgage holders to jump ship to cause them huge electoral problems .
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Sorry, its not obvious at all.
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
I agree. Completely silly. If only we hadn't been hoodwinked by that lump of lard and his UKIP/Tory backers we might have a nearly functioning economy by now and people might be able to afford their mortgages.
Some of us have already spent our Lib Dems gain Mid Beds winnings.
But how dense is Nads.
1) She believed Boris Johnson
2) She has a different understanding of what immediate effect means to the rest of the UK.
The optics are awful for the Conservatives. They should seriously consider removing the whip from her (and even expelling her from the party). Otherwise they are just going to get it all thrown back in your face come GE time.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
15% of a debt that is 2x Income is different to 6% of a debt that is 8x Income though.
If prices go back to a house price to income ratio of the 80s/early 90s then that'd be great. Will mean some huge negative equity for many, but oh well, not the end of the world.
I was a first time buyer in the late 80s, you could get a mortgage 5 times your income no problem. Thats why house prices crashed when interest rates reached 15%.
England need to get to 250 by 3pm and then declare and bowl the Aussies out tonight because this is the forecast for tomorrow. Layers of the draw take note.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
15% of a debt that is 2x Income is different to 6% of a debt that is 8x Income though.
If prices go back to a house price to income ratio of the 80s/early 90s then that'd be great. Will mean some huge negative equity for many, but oh well, not the end of the world.
I was a first time buyer in the late 80s, you could get a mortgage 5 times your income no problem. Thats why house prices crashed when interest rates reached 15%.
Try using actual facts rather than anecdotes.
House Price to Income Ratio were below 4x almost the entirety of the 80s. House Price to Income Ratio hasn't been below 4 since 2002 and has been at 6+ for the past decade.
England need to get to 250 by 3pm and then declare and bowl the Aussies out tonight because this is the forecast for tomorrow. Layers of the draw take note.
Yeah I've seen that and greened up. I think Australia will be happy enough to take a draw from this test too given England won the toss on a tremendous batting surface.
Pietersen is overtalking in the commentary box for me. Getting a bit carried away with himself. It's reminding me of McEnroe at Wimbledon. Knowledgeable, eloquent, but better as a pundit than a commentator. Still, minor gripe, great match, great coverage, both tv and radio.
England need to get to 250 by 3pm and then declare and bowl the Aussies out tonight because this is the forecast for tomorrow. Layers of the draw take note.
Met Office UKV has the rain stopping at about 11am, with cloud cover until 2pm.
Ideal for bowling but unlikely to be lots of stoppages. Bat on for another hour for 350...
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
Ideologically Starmer is probably closest to Ed Miliband, hence Miliband is back in a senior role in his Shadow Cabinet.
Starmer may be no Corbyn but he is definitely no Blair either. So if as likely he becomes PM next year we may finally find out what an Ed Miliband government might have been like almost a decade after the event (the only major difference Starmer has now accepted the Brexit he and Ed campaigned against)
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Yes I've been very lucky, as a political anorak it has been fascinating. All except Callaghan were through work - lunches etc mostly, although I met Blair on the Eurostar coming back from a conference in Paris where he had been the main speaker. I met Callaghan at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary when I was a kid, the Callaghans were my grandparents' next door neighbours in the 1950s. Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened that time.
Rishi Sunak must pick a side on Boris Johnson and “show some leadership” by voting on a report by the privileges committee today, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The prime minister this morning ducked questions about whether he would attend this afternoon’s debate, and is widely expected to abstain, along with most ministers. Allies of Johnson are preparing to condemn the findings of the report and warn it sets a precedent for political targeting of other ministers, but it remains unclear whether they will force a vote.
Sunak said that the privileges committee, which said Johnson should have got a 90-day suspension if he were still an MP, had “done their work thoroughly, and I respect them for that”.
But he refused to say whether he would vote, saying today’s debate was “a matter for the House, not for the government, and that’s why each individual colleague will make up their own mind when the time comes”.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?
Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
What was interesting is that the Macmillan Government then introduced legislation to allow peers to renounce their titles within a certain period. This was intended to remedy the injustice to Tony Benn, but it also had the effect of then allowing both Home and Hailsham to do the same and thus become viable contenders for the Tory Leadership in November 1963. A law with unintended consequences....
The irony being that Tony Benn's son and heir is now a hereditary Labour peer. Bob's yer uncle etc. etc.
Home was a true Toff though, the 14th Earl of Home. Benn just had a father who got a hereditary peerage as reward for being a Labour MP and Minister.
Indeed not even the House of Lords has many genuine toffs left, most of them are just appointed Life Peers given most hereditary peers were removed in 1999
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Sorry, its not obvious at all.
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
So you're agreeing with me, but imputing a malign motive to her actions?
Someone told her it would be fine, or even persuaded her to defer the appointment to avoid a by-election, and when she found out this would not be permitted she attempted to rectify the situation, but she wasn't given the opportunity to rectify the situation when there was time to do so.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
There's a property crash coming imo. High to low drop of at least 15% and as much as 25%.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?
Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
What was interesting is that the Macmillan Government then introduced legislation to allow peers to renounce their titles within a certain period. This was intended to remedy the injustice to Tony Benn, but it also had the effect of then allowing both Home and Hailsham to do the same and thus become viable contenders for the Tory Leadership in November 1963. A law with unintended consequences....
The irony being that Tony Benn's son and heir is now a hereditary Labour peer. Bob's yer uncle etc. etc.
Home was a true Toff though, the 14th Earl of Home. Benn just had a father who got a hereditary peerage as reward for being a Labour MP and Minister.
Indeed not even the House of Lords has many genuine toffs left, most of them are just appointed Life Peers given most hereditary peers were removed in 1999
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Sorry, its not obvious at all.
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
So you're agreeing with me, but imputing a malign motive to her actions?
Someone told her it would be fine, or even persuaded her to defer the appointment to avoid a by-election, and when she found out this would not be permitted she attempted to rectify the situation, but she wasn't given the opportunity to rectify the situation when there was time to do so.
No, I'm imputing ignorance to her actions.
Who told her it was fine?
I don't believe anyone in any position of authority to do so actually did. I think she assumed it would be, and her assumption was wrong.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened that time.
Won't happen, interest rates will be coming down quickly in 6-12 months
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Sorry, its not obvious at all.
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
So you're agreeing with me, but imputing a malign motive to her actions?
Someone told her it would be fine, or even persuaded her to defer the appointment to avoid a by-election, and when she found out this would not be permitted she attempted to rectify the situation, but she wasn't given the opportunity to rectify the situation when there was time to do so.
No, I'm imputing ignorance to her actions.
Who told her it was fine?
I don't believe anyone in any position of authority to do so actually did. I think she assumed it would be, and her assumption was wrong.
I think Johnson told her it would be fine. Oddly, she’s not taken her anger out on Johnson though.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened that time.
Won't happen, interest rates will be coming down quickly in 6-12 months
It won't happen - maybe house prices may fall 5 to 10% max - but I don't think interest rates will come down anytime soon.
They will probably peak at 5% base rate and then stay at around that level for at least 2 maybe 3 or 4 years as we continue to struggle to deal with inflation.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Sorry, its not obvious at all.
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
So you're agreeing with me, but imputing a malign motive to her actions?
Someone told her it would be fine, or even persuaded her to defer the appointment to avoid a by-election, and when she found out this would not be permitted she attempted to rectify the situation, but she wasn't given the opportunity to rectify the situation when there was time to do so.
No, I'm imputing ignorance to her actions.
Who told her it was fine?
I don't believe anyone in any position of authority to do so actually did. I think she assumed it would be, and her assumption was wrong.
I think Johnson told her it would be fine. Oddly, she’s not taken her anger out on Johnson though.
If Johnson did and she believed him, then she assumed that Johnson was right and was wrong to do so. Her fault still and still an assumption.
Johnson was an ex-PM by that point already. He had the ability to put her on his list, which he did, what happened afterwards was not in his power to direct.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
There's a property crash coming imo. High to low drop of at least 15% and as much as 25%.
I think you need to factor in inflation because it is real house prices that matter. Peak to trough real house prices are already down almost 13% (using the Nationwide HPI deflated using the CPI). I reckon they could come off about another 10-15% in real terms - thus slightly exceeding what we saw during the GFC - but something like half of that would come from inflation. I think the housing market is still fundamentally supported by supply and demand imbalances.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Which figures are you using ?
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
Wages at least, are rising fast, and should exceed inflation in the next three months or so. The proportion of income being spent on mortgage interest, from 1987 to 1989, and 2005-07 was crazy, and well above current levels.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Sorry, its not obvious at all.
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
So you're agreeing with me, but imputing a malign motive to her actions?
Someone told her it would be fine, or even persuaded her to defer the appointment to avoid a by-election, and when she found out this would not be permitted she attempted to rectify the situation, but she wasn't given the opportunity to rectify the situation when there was time to do so.
No, I'm imputing ignorance to her actions.
Who told her it was fine?
I don't believe anyone in any position of authority to do so actually did. I think she assumed it would be, and her assumption was wrong.
I think Johnson told her it would be fine. Oddly, she’s not taken her anger out on Johnson though.
Yep. She was misled by Boris Johnson, joining a club with membership in the millions. Exclusive it is not.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Marina Hyde, no friend of Tories, has a soft spot for Nadine, referring to her horrible abused chuildhood and genuine concern for patients as a nurse.
Anecdotally I thought Major had excellent manners (e.g. held a door open for me when I was a novice backbencher) and Blair was fascinating to talk to - one of the fastest minds I've ever met, without being especially warm (Cherie was more spontaneously kind). But Gordon was perhaps the nicest of the three (no doubt people who he fell out with felt differently), in a way that absolutely didn't come across on TV - as my Scottish wife at the time said, he's a gruff, reliable older man in a generation when that type is totally out of fashion.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
Wages at least, are rising fast, and should exceed inflation in the next three months or so. The proportion of income being spent on mortgage interest, from 1987 to 1989, and 2005-07 was crazy, and well above current levels.
Do you have a link to UK average wages ?
I've got CPIH, BoE rates, ave house prices for my spreadsheet...
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
Wages at least, are rising fast, and should exceed inflation in the next three months or so. The proportion of income being spent on mortgage interest, from 1987 to 1989, and 2005-07 was crazy, and well above current levels.
I believe the proportion of income spent on housing is higher today than it was in the 80s.
Interest isn't the only factor. Rent especially is I believe a much higher proportion of income today.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
Sorry, its not obvious at all.
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
So you're agreeing with me, but imputing a malign motive to her actions?
Someone told her it would be fine, or even persuaded her to defer the appointment to avoid a by-election, and when she found out this would not be permitted she attempted to rectify the situation, but she wasn't given the opportunity to rectify the situation when there was time to do so.
No, I'm imputing ignorance to her actions.
Who told her it was fine?
I don't believe anyone in any position of authority to do so actually did. I think she assumed it would be, and her assumption was wrong.
I think Johnson told her it would be fine. Oddly, she’s not taken her anger out on Johnson though.
If Johnson did and she believed him, then she assumed that Johnson was right and was wrong to do so. Her fault still and still an assumption.
Johnson was an ex-PM by that point already. He had the ability to put her on his list, which he did, what happened afterwards was not in his power to direct.
I was, in no way, suggesting that believing something Johnson said was a sane thing to do.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'. Very few people who express that sentiment are the ones doing the hurting.
England need to get to 250 by 3pm and then declare and bowl the Aussies out tonight because this is the forecast for tomorrow. Layers of the draw take note.
Met Office UKV has the rain stopping at about 11am, with cloud cover until 2pm.
Ideal for bowling but unlikely to be lots of stoppages. Bat on for another hour for 350...
Yep - I think they will get a lot of play tomorrow. If they can I would try to bowl tonight (assuming not bowled out) but with plenty on the board.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
Wages at least, are rising fast, and should exceed inflation in the next three months or so. The proportion of income being spent on mortgage interest, from 1987 to 1989, and 2005-07 was crazy, and well above current levels.
Do you have a link to UK average wages ?
I've got CPIH, BoE rates, ave house prices for my spreadsheet...
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
Sorry, but why does she need to be told? She's an MP, is she incapable of asking or finding out for herself without being told?
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
If you ask a question and haven't had a response then you aren't assuming anything. You're waiting.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
I think Dorries' claim, and she's not the most reliable witness, is that Sunak's team disingenuously put her name forward knowing she was disqualified, and in doing so prevented her from qualifying.
Presumably her name was put forward, the Lords scrutiny committee asked them has Dorries agreed to step down? PM's team: no she hasn't. Name is taken off list and byelection avoided. If Dorries had been asked she would have agreed, including the byelection.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'. Very few people who express that sentiment are the ones doing the hurting.
Indeed, but isn't it remarkable how when its renters or others hurting as its been for years barely a squeak is heard.
But if people with equity might lose their equity, suddenly its unthinkable for hurt to happen.
Whatever happened to "the country needs to accept its poorer". Is it just "only those without equity need to be poorer"?
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
Wages at least, are rising fast, and should exceed inflation in the next three months or so. The proportion of income being spent on mortgage interest, from 1987 to 1989, and 2005-07 was crazy, and well above current levels.
Do you have a link to UK average wages ?
I've got CPIH, BoE rates, ave house prices for my spreadsheet...
It doesn't link back to an actual wages chart which is annoying but the chart is not disimilar to my calculated real terms 25 yr ave mortgage on the ave house adjusted for inflation and it clearly shows 6% would be broadly similar to the late 80s and 2007 crunches.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
There's a property crash coming imo. High to low drop of at least 15% and as much as 25%.
I think you need to factor in inflation because it is real house prices that matter. Peak to trough real house prices are already down almost 13% (using the Nationwide HPI deflated using the CPI). I reckon they could come off about another 10-15% in real terms - thus slightly exceeding what we saw during the GFC - but something like half of that would come from inflation. I think the housing market is still fundamentally supported by supply and demand imbalances.
Hmm, maybe. So only say 10% off with inflation doing the rest. That would be a good outcome imo if it happens over a few years. Better than a crash and better than no significant correction at all. I hope it transpires like that. What I more expect, though, is a slightly panicky 'too big' fall on the route to there.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Yes I've been very lucky, as a political anorak it has been fascinating. All except Callaghan were through work - lunches etc mostly, although I met Blair on the Eurostar coming back from a conference in Paris where he had been the main speaker. I met Callaghan at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary when I was a kid, the Callaghans were my grandparents' next door neighbours in the 1950s. Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
This is often said about Major. His grey, pea-eating puppet on Spitting Image I think actually did him quite a lot of damage, and was unfair.
My two favourite political diaries (Clark and Mullin) both show him in a positive light - engaging and likeable.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'. Very few people who express that sentiment are the ones doing the hurting.
Indeed, but isn't it remarkable how when its renters or others hurting as its been for years barely a squeak is heard.
But if people with equity might lose their equity, suddenly its unthinkable for hurt to happen.
Whatever happened to "the country needs to accept its poorer". Is it just "only those without equity need to be poorer"?
I'd have thought the situation for renters will probably get worse before it gets better as higher rates force borrow to let LLs out the market (Or massively increase rents to wipe their face) leaving the rental stock with lower supply than previously.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Yes I've been very lucky, as a political anorak it has been fascinating. All except Callaghan were through work - lunches etc mostly, although I met Blair on the Eurostar coming back from a conference in Paris where he had been the main speaker. I met Callaghan at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary when I was a kid, the Callaghans were my grandparents' next door neighbours in the 1950s. Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
Your warm opinion of Callaghan and Major seems to have been picked up in public polling, particularly compared with the relative state of their parties at the time.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Which figures are you using ?
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
I was using a house my mate bought for £80k in Spring 1989, A year later he got a valuation of £45k but was told that it would not sell. The fall in house prices was far more than the offical figures in some areas. In 1992 I was looking to buy a 1 bed flat in Brighton, there were literally hundreds for £30k or less, such flats are now 10 times the cost. The offical figures are skewed as properties just did not sale in that period. (yet somehow the tories won in 1992)
I've got tickets for tomorrow so I hope they slow down a bit.
I 'think' you'll be ok, but it wouldn't amaze me to see England bowled up mid afternoon. What happens then we'll see. I think the Aussies will bat the way they did in the first innings, classic test match style. Its then a case of how much the ball misbehaves/moves etc.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Well, no we're probably not. But mortgage affordability is a function on interest rates AND wages AND amount borrowed, which itself is a function of house prices both current and past. I would say the resulting cocktail does give us a situation as bad as in the 80s.
There's a property crash coming imo. High to low drop of at least 15% and as much as 25%.
I think you need to factor in inflation because it is real house prices that matter. Peak to trough real house prices are already down almost 13% (using the Nationwide HPI deflated using the CPI). I reckon they could come off about another 10-15% in real terms - thus slightly exceeding what we saw during the GFC - but something like half of that would come from inflation. I think the housing market is still fundamentally supported by supply and demand imbalances.
Hmm, maybe. So only say 10% off with inflation doing the rest. That would be a good outcome imo if it happens over a few years. Better than a crash and better than no significant correction at all. I hope it transpires like that. What I more expect, though, is a slightly panicky 'too big' fall on the route to there.
My view is that it would be a good thing if house prices were lower - so I'd welcome this. Worth noting that lower prices do little for the disposable incomes of those who already own a house. But those without property have lost out for so long that it's hard to object to them winning for once. From a very narrow personal perspective, I would be more than happy to see the house which I own and live in with my family lose half its value in a house price crash because it means when my daughters grow up there is more of a chance of them buying a house. I accept there are wider and more complex negative ramifications from this though!
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Which figures are you using ?
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
I was using a house my mate bought for £80k in Spring 1989, A year later he got a valuation of £45k but was told that it would not sell. The fall in house prices was far more than the offical figures in some areas. In 1992 I was looking to buy a 1 bed flat in Brighton, there were literally hundreds for £30k or less, such flats are now 10 times the cost. The offical figures are skewed as properties just did not sale in that period. (yet somehow the tories won in 1992)
There'll always be variation from the mean. The %age increase in value between the north/midlands (Not much) vs London in the 2010s (Up hugely) is a good example.
I moved to a larger property in 2018, it's gone up in %age terms far more than my previous property did from 2010.
It could give that back in the next few years though
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
Being likeable in person doesn't actually prevent someone from being a complete shit. All it means is that they are good at, and enjoy, making other people enjoy their presence. It doesn't mean that they care about other people or have a conscience. Had a boss like that - very polite and made you feel comfortable in person, also completely dishonest and self-centred.
The bit in bold shows why Liz Truss should never think about standing for high office again.
Liz Truss said the conclusions of the privileges committee report into Boris Johnson were “overly harsh” and she would not be voting to approve its recommendations in the Commons today.
The former prime minister said the inquiry’s recommendations of a 90-day suspension for her predecessor if he were still an MP were too severe. “He himself has said he’s made mistakes, and none of us are perfect,” she said. “I’m not questioning the integrity of the report that parliamentarians have put forward. I think the judgment is pretty harsh, but I’m not questioning the integrity of those people.”
Truss, 47, who resigned in October after just 44 days in office, was speaking at a conference in Dublin and said she would not be back in time to vote over whether to approve the committee’s report.
She said Johnson had motivated people with his vision of Britain but was “not popular among what you might call the sort of ‘elite intelligentsia’ in Britain”.
“So yes, there are legitimate criticisms of Boris, but there are also a group of people who quite like the status quo the way it is, don’t want things to change, didn’t want Brexit, don’t want to see economic reforms.”
Truss also said it was “puerile” of the Daily Star newspaper during her time in office to run a livestream of a 60p lettuce to test which would last longer.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'. Very few people who express that sentiment are the ones doing the hurting.
Indeed, but isn't it remarkable how when its renters or others hurting as its been for years barely a squeak is heard.
But if people with equity might lose their equity, suddenly its unthinkable for hurt to happen.
Whatever happened to "the country needs to accept its poorer". Is it just "only those without equity need to be poorer"?
I'd have thought the situation for renters will probably get worse before it gets better as higher rates force borrow to let LLs out the market (Or massively increase rents to wipe their face) leaving the rental stock with lower supply than previously.
If parasitical landlords (those who expect a tenant to pay their mortgage for them) get squeezed out of the market then the situation for many tenants will significantly improve. If they can get on the ladder with a smaller deposit replacing their landlord and pay their own mortgage not someone else's then the situation is much better.
And those who can't afford to do that are no worse off as for each landlord that leaves the market, so does a tenant.
As it happens I bought my own home last year. I expect to end up in negative equity, I hope I do, I don't care though. I'm fortunate, others aren't.
Even with everything that's happened I'm paying much less for my own home this year than I was paying towards someone else's mortgage last year.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'. Very few people who express that sentiment are the ones doing the hurting.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Yes I've been very lucky, as a political anorak it has been fascinating. All except Callaghan were through work - lunches etc mostly, although I met Blair on the Eurostar coming back from a conference in Paris where he had been the main speaker. I met Callaghan at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary when I was a kid, the Callaghans were my grandparents' next door neighbours in the 1950s. Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
This is often said about Major. His grey, pea-eating puppet on Spitting Image I think actually did him quite a lot of damage, and was unfair.
My two favourite political diaries (Clark and Mullin) both show him in a positive light - engaging and likeable.
He was treated very poorly by the press, I think there was certainly some snobbishness at work there and he felt it. But also he suffered from inheriting a government that was already unpopular and running out of steam. He did well to just get the Tories over the line, a testament to his own skills as a politician, in 1992, but it was a poisoned chalice. Today's Tories seem to disdain Major (because they are mostly inheritors of the 'Bastards' tradition that he tried in vain to contain) but I think he was a good PM with sound judgement, and a thoroughly decent man - too decent for the snakepit of front line politics, maybe.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Which figures are you using ?
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
I was using a house my mate bought for £80k in Spring 1989, A year later he got a valuation of £45k but was told that it would not sell. The fall in house prices was far more than the offical figures in some areas. In 1992 I was looking to buy a 1 bed flat in Brighton, there were literally hundreds for £30k or less, such flats are now 10 times the cost. The offical figures are skewed as properties just did not sale in that period. (yet somehow the tories won in 1992)
So another anecdote. Anecdotes are not data.
Hopefully in real terms those flats will be back to 1992 levels soon. I doubt it, but it'd be great if they are.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Yes I've been very lucky, as a political anorak it has been fascinating. All except Callaghan were through work - lunches etc mostly, although I met Blair on the Eurostar coming back from a conference in Paris where he had been the main speaker. I met Callaghan at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary when I was a kid, the Callaghans were my grandparents' next door neighbours in the 1950s. Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
Your warm opinion of Callaghan and Major seems to have been picked up in public polling, particularly compared with the relative state of their parties at the time.
That graphic is a bit silly in the sense that obviously popularity at the end of a PM's tenure is lower than at its peak, because highest point is the definition of a "peak".
Also, it lists Sunak, but he has not (unless the Sunday Times knows something) reached the end of his tenure yet.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Which figures are you using ?
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
I was using a house my mate bought for £80k in Spring 1989, A year later he got a valuation of £45k but was told that it would not sell. The fall in house prices was far more than the offical figures in some areas. In 1992 I was looking to buy a 1 bed flat in Brighton, there were literally hundreds for £30k or less, such flats are now 10 times the cost. The offical figures are skewed as properties just did not sale in that period. (yet somehow the tories won in 1992)
So another anecdote. Anecdotes are not data.
Hopefully in real terms those flats will be back to 1992 levels soon. I doubt it, but it'd be great if they are.
The crash WAS far worse in the south though - Sir Mark Boleat looked at this in his 1994 paper.
Table 4. Regional House Price Decreases in the United Kingdom Region East Anglia 34.5 Southeast 30.7 Greater London 28.5 Southwest 28.8 East Midlands 19.4 West Midlands 10.9 Wales 9.6 Northwest 10.2 Yorkshire and Humberside 9.3 North 6.1 Northern Ireland 4.6 Scotland 1.3
Comments
It did have that consequence, of course, but as Macmillan seems to have intended to fight the next election as leader at the time of the act's passing that really was in all ways an unintended consequence.
If she assumed that she could refuse to resign then have the bauble waiting for her later on, then that's her fault. Unless she was formally advised that was OK, then had it changed, she shouldn't have assumed.
Never ass/u/me it makes an ass out of u and me.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
Don't even get me started on the school fees policy.
The irony is I actually support the policy, when state schools are struggling it is wrong to fund private schools through the tax system but Labour's sums do not add and I think they've spent the proceeds five times over.
In 1988 the interest rates were circa 8% then rose to 15% in 1990 so mortgage costs went up a lot because interest rates doubled.
A bit like today.
If prices go back to a house price to income ratio of the 80s/early 90s then that'd be great. Will mean some huge negative equity for many, but oh well, not the end of the world.
We can see from her very rapid response on the day she became aware that she could not defer the appointment that she was willing to resign immediately. That makes it clear that she was stitched up.
You don't have to like her to come to that conclusion. It's obvious.
now
Yields on UK two-year gilts top 5% for the first time since 2008
Markets Today has the latest: trib.al/YVmZeoI
The amount of people impacted though will be much lower as more have longer term fixed rates .
Problem for the Tories is that renters already vote strongly for Labour and you only need a minority of mortgage holders to jump ship to cause them huge electoral problems .
It seems she screwed up and only when she realised she'd screwed up did she throw her toys out of the pram. By then its too late.
They should seriously consider removing the whip from her (and even expelling her from the party).
Otherwise they are just going to get it all thrown back in your face come GE time.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
House Price to Income Ratio were below 4x almost the entirety of the 80s.
House Price to Income Ratio hasn't been below 4 since 2002 and has been at 6+ for the past decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPsIk1gy9Eo
Ideal for bowling but unlikely to be lots of stoppages. Bat on for another hour for 350...
Starmer may be no Corbyn but he is definitely no Blair either. So if as likely he becomes PM next year we may finally find out what an Ed Miliband government might have been like almost a decade after the event (the only major difference Starmer has now accepted the Brexit he and Ed campaigned against)
He absolutely isn't:
"A Keir Starmer government might be more radical than you think - Michael Jacobs"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/04/keir-starmer-government-labour-leader
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/26/ignore-detractors-keir-starmer-radical-transform-country
Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened that time.
Indeed not even the House of Lords has many genuine toffs left, most of them are just appointed Life Peers given most hereditary peers were removed in 1999
https://news.sky.com/story/man-pleads-guilty-to-causing-distress-over-offensive-hillsborough-shirt-at-fa-cup-final-12905214
Someone told her it would be fine, or even persuaded her to defer the appointment to avoid a by-election, and when she found out this would not be permitted she attempted to rectify the situation, but she wasn't given the opportunity to rectify the situation when there was time to do so.
Good to see Test Cricket at its best ...
Who told her it was fine?
I don't believe anyone in any position of authority to do so actually did. I think she assumed it would be, and her assumption was wrong.
They will probably peak at 5% base rate and then stay at around that level for at least 2 maybe 3 or 4 years as we continue to struggle to deal with inflation.
Johnson was an ex-PM by that point already. He had the ability to put her on his list, which he did, what happened afterwards was not in his power to direct.
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
Anecdotally I thought Major had excellent manners (e.g. held a door open for me when I was a novice backbencher) and Blair was fascinating to talk to - one of the fastest minds I've ever met, without being especially warm (Cherie was more spontaneously kind). But Gordon was perhaps the nicest of the three (no doubt people who he fell out with felt differently), in a way that absolutely didn't come across on TV - as my Scottish wife at the time said, he's a gruff, reliable older man in a generation when that type is totally out of fashion.
I've got CPIH, BoE rates, ave house prices for my spreadsheet...
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
Interest isn't the only factor. Rent especially is I believe a much higher proportion of income today.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
Presumably her name was put forward, the Lords scrutiny committee asked them has Dorries agreed to step down? PM's team: no she hasn't. Name is taken off list and byelection avoided. If Dorries had been asked she would have agreed, including the byelection.
But if people with equity might lose their equity, suddenly its unthinkable for hurt to happen.
Whatever happened to "the country needs to accept its poorer". Is it just "only those without equity need to be poorer"?
My two favourite political diaries (Clark and Mullin) both show him in a positive light - engaging and likeable.
Devon Malcolm got one of those runs.
Worth noting that lower prices do little for the disposable incomes of those who already own a house.
But those without property have lost out for so long that it's hard to object to them winning for once.
From a very narrow personal perspective, I would be more than happy to see the house which I own and live in with my family lose half its value in a house price crash because it means when my daughters grow up there is more of a chance of them buying a house.
I accept there are wider and more complex negative ramifications from this though!
I moved to a larger property in 2018, it's gone up in %age terms far more than my previous property did from 2010.
It could give that back in the next few years though
Liz Truss said the conclusions of the privileges committee report into Boris Johnson were “overly harsh” and she would not be voting to approve its recommendations in the Commons today.
The former prime minister said the inquiry’s recommendations of a 90-day suspension for her predecessor if he were still an MP were too severe. “He himself has said he’s made mistakes, and none of us are perfect,” she said. “I’m not questioning the integrity of the report that parliamentarians have put forward. I think the judgment is pretty harsh, but I’m not questioning the integrity of those people.”
Truss, 47, who resigned in October after just 44 days in office, was speaking at a conference in Dublin and said she would not be back in time to vote over whether to approve the committee’s report.
She said Johnson had motivated people with his vision of Britain but was “not popular among what you might call the sort of ‘elite intelligentsia’ in Britain”.
“So yes, there are legitimate criticisms of Boris, but there are also a group of people who quite like the status quo the way it is, don’t want things to change, didn’t want Brexit, don’t want to see economic reforms.”
Truss also said it was “puerile” of the Daily Star newspaper during her time in office to run a livestream of a 60p lettuce to test which would last longer.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-vote-latest-partygate-report-privileges-committee-w6mnkhlhv
And those who can't afford to do that are no worse off as for each landlord that leaves the market, so does a tenant.
As it happens I bought my own home last year. I expect to end up in negative equity, I hope I do, I don't care though. I'm fortunate, others aren't.
Even with everything that's happened I'm paying much less for my own home this year than I was paying towards someone else's mortgage last year.
Of course he gave no indication he was leaving.
Hopefully in real terms those flats will be back to 1992 levels soon. I doubt it, but it'd be great if they are.
Also, it lists Sunak, but he has not (unless the Sunday Times knows something) reached the end of his tenure yet.
https://www.boleat.com/materials/the_1985_93_housing_market_in_the_uk_1994.pdf#:~:text=In September 1992, following an exchange,or causing arbitrary redistributions of wealth.&text=In September 1992, following,arbitrary redistributions of wealth.&text=1992, following an exchange,or causing arbitrary redistributions
Table 4. Regional House Price Decreases in the United Kingdom
Region
East Anglia 34.5
Southeast 30.7
Greater London 28.5
Southwest 28.8
East Midlands 19.4
West Midlands 10.9
Wales 9.6
Northwest 10.2
Yorkshire and Humberside 9.3
North 6.1
Northern Ireland 4.6
Scotland 1.3