The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I find the criticism of the current interest rate policy, and in particular this slightly bizarre idea of a Tory mortgage premium, incredibly parochial. It completely ignores the fact that our interest rates are in lockstep with both the US and the EU, the latter having recently put its interest rate up to a 20 year high with more to come. The idea we could have somehow avoided this or prevented our interest rates from going up would be cynical if it was not so naive.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
Inflation is a problem everywhere in the West but looks to be more embedded here and our interest rates are probably going to have to go higher. Asking why the Tories have left the UK economy especially vulnerable and exposed is absolutely a legitimate question, and the BOE are absolutely worthy of criticism too. One thing we do have control over is costly additional checks on EU food that we are set to introduce, which will push up food inflation further. Another example of how Tory economic policies are making our situation worse.
Our interest rates are undoubtedly going higher, if there was any doubt about that at all yesterday's very poor inflation figures confirmed it. I would agree that historically we have found it harder to control inflation than most countries, that has been so since at least the 1970s and arguably before that. I don't agree that the Tories have left the country "especially vulnerable", at least no more than it usually is.
FWIW, in my view current fixed rate deals over the next 2-5 years at 6% still look pretty attractive. If I was on a floating rate I would be signing up to one now as a way of capping the risk.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
But we can’t have another vote on it because that would be anti-democratic, even though there’s clear evidence that opinion has shifted in the face of the actual experience of Brexit.
Of course we can have another vote on it. The issue was that the 2016 ref was billed as being the final say and that politicians would implement the result. When it went the ‘wrong’ way, lots of politicians didn’t want to honour there word.
Many many people who voted remain wanted the vote honoured, and that partly explains 2019.
Having a second referendum was never undemocratic, but arguably it would have damaged democracy.
Nobody wants to face up to climate change. It either isn't happening because look at those Starmerite Just Stop Oil lunatics, or its too big to deal with so lets not bother.
The reality is that what *we* do is a drop in the ocean when billions of people are continuing to increase their carbon footprint.
Is anyone going to ground 1000 planes to offset the ones India is putting into service? Even that would just mean emissions would stand still.
We should carry on polluting until everyone else stops polluting? That won't end well.
We aren't setting a terrible example.
I'd love to see that figure updated - the last year in it is pretty old now. I think the UK might look even better with more recent years included. The last few years have had some large increases in wind capacity added.
I've used figures from the OECD, which don't yet have 2022. Obviously you can see the pandemic year for all the countries, and the major development over the extra years is that Germany has pretty much matched the UK's declines in emissions over the last few years, which isn't what I was expecting given the nuclear shutdown there.
Integrate to obtain cumulative emissions per capita before patting ourselves on the back and pointing the finger at China and India. (Yes, I know it doesn't include greenhouse gases other than CO2.)
One reason to index to 1990 and look at gross emissions per country is that is the framework around which the UN negotiations are built, and it's how the figures are most often talked about.
When people are talking about requiring net zero by 2050 I think it is motivating to realise that the UK has already made it half the way there, and we don't seem to be halfway to living in caves, despite what the naysayers may claim.
MEPs cannot repeal EU law. They can't even initiate it. DERRRR
Oh look. It's 2015 again. And once more for the cheap seats
In the UK, MP's in Parliament (Westminster) generally do not initiate law - that's the Government (Whitehall). Government is the PM, the Cabinet, and the Civil Service. Some MPs can and do initiate law via Private Member's Bills but they are not the majority and even some MP's - the ineffably stupid Christopher Chope - dispute them.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram, aren't I?
That’s the government we elect, via elections. If we want to repeal a law, we elect a different government that promises to repeal the law
Remind me, how do EU voters repeal EU laws? Ah, wait, they can’t.
I was referring to your second sentence, not your first.
I just valued democracy more even if others value different things
I think Brexit was a bad idea.
However, not implementing the decision of a referendum is a much worse idea.
A U.K. with a slightly smaller economy than it might otherwise have had would still recognisably be the U.K.
A U.K. that did not respect its voters would not be.
But we can’t have another vote on it because that would be anti-democratic, even though there’s clear evidence that opinion has shifted in the face of the actual experience of Brexit.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
The government can’t protect everyone from poor decisions
People overborrowed to live a lifestyle they couldn’t afford. Interest rates were always going to revert to normal levels
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
I am not sure there is an easy way out of this mess. The best strategy would be to have not get ourselves into this in the first place. Which is why pinning the pain on the Tories will be a significant part of the politics we see over the next year or so.
There is a way the government could manage this: "Yes it hurt, yes it worked". The problem is that the governing corruption party is incapable of understanding how people live or showing empathy. They are more likely to deny there is a problem and then sneer at the people suffering than face into it. A huge contrast to 1992.
I find the criticism of the current interest rate policy, and in particular this slightly bizarre idea of a Tory mortgage premium, incredibly parochial. It completely ignores the fact that our interest rates are in lockstep with both the US and the EU, the latter having recently put its interest rate up to a 20 year high with more to come. The idea we could have somehow avoided this or prevented our interest rates from going up would be cynical if it was not so naive.
Where we have got into trouble is where the MPC seemed to think we were special or had some room for manoeuvre that we don't. So they were too slow to increase rates, falling behind the mighty Fed, and as a result both our currency and gilt rates took a bit of a hammering, the former importing another swig of inflation and the latter increasing borrowing costs.
Once we recognise that we are not only following the herd but are obliged to do so unless we want to incur serious penalties it becomes obvious that not only is our Chancellor pretending he has control that he does not but that Reeves is also pretending she could do something differently, which she couldn't.
There are things that government can do at the margins, such as reduce its own borrowing needs, ideally to zero, but no political party is contemplating such moves which would come with a world of pain attached. Instead, we seem to inhabit an Alice in Wonderland world where we argue about things beyond our control rather than address those things that we can control.
Bill Clinton’s chief strategist James Carville famously said: “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.
The question this morning is is the Bank of England going to bite the bullet and increase rates by half a percent rather than drip drip over the coming months
I understand the lib dems are proposing paying upto £300 per month to those affected at the ending of their fixed rate mortgage
Frankly, why not help renters as well and anyone else struggling with the COL if they can find the money without spooking the markets further
In fairness to Rachel Reeves she is not going down that road but asking for the FCA's recommendation on mortgage distress to be firmed up but unlike the lib dems, she may well be faced with this problem herself as Sky business has said that interest rates of upto 6% wiill persist for the next two years and she will not want to be a hostage to fortune
The government can’t protect everyone from poor decisions
People overborrowed to live a lifestyle they couldn’t afford. Interest rates were always going to revert to normal levels
I concur. Yet the government and establishment have been pretty complicit in teaching the last couple of generations that house prices are a one way bet, the best store of wealth and are protected from falls by government intervention. Whilst not teaching us anything about investing in shares and letting more youngsters invest in crypto than the stock market.
We should not intervene, but the govt, and others including the previous Labour govt, are as much to blame as the people overborrowing.
Comments
FWIW, in my view current fixed rate deals over the next 2-5 years at 6% still look pretty attractive. If I was on a floating rate I would be signing up to one now as a way of capping the risk.
Many many people who voted remain wanted the vote honoured, and that partly explains 2019.
Having a second referendum was never undemocratic, but arguably it would have damaged democracy.
When people are talking about requiring net zero by 2050 I think it is motivating to realise that the UK has already made it half the way there, and we don't seem to be halfway to living in caves, despite what the naysayers may claim.
People overborrowed to live a lifestyle they couldn’t afford. Interest rates were always going to revert to normal levels
We should not intervene, but the govt, and others including the previous Labour govt, are as much to blame as the people overborrowing.