Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.
Like Indy, I hate spiders.
Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase
The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.
Like Indy, I hate spiders.
Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase
The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.
1. Wasps 2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them) 3. Rats 4. Snakes (Again scary) 5. Spiders of any great size 6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes 7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed 8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies. 9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful! 10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!
I'm afraid that you missed the planet's only truly arsehole species. Homo sapiens.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
The same observation shows that the Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on food prices either, but you don't seem to be arguing that inflation targetting is futile.
I certainly don't think that targetting CPIH instead is a panacea either because it still does nothing to address the relationship between monetary policy and asset bubbles. You would expect CPI and CPIH to move in sync because it just tracks owner occupiers' housing costs, not asset prices.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
And if you don't want to be homeless, then housing is in fact, a cost. A pretty essential cost.
To exclude housing costs from inflation because they're not "real costs" absolutely is a fallacy.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
With all that investment, why don't we have the best housing stock in Europe?
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
The same observation shows that the Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on food prices either, but you don't seem to be arguing that inflation targetting is futile.
I certainly don't think that targetting CPIH instead is a panacea either because it still does nothing to address the relationship between monetary policy and asset bubbles. You would expect CPI and CPIH to move in sync because it just tracks owner occupiers' housing costs, not asset prices.
The fundamental reason they move in sync is because housing costs are a pretty small part of the basket: several per cent. Thus, current housing costs would not have a significant impact on today's inflation targetting. An asset price target, on the other hand, would have led to a significantly different policy during the 2010s. Put simply, trying to pop anything that vaguely resembles a bubble can throttle the rest of the economy.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
With all that investment, why don't we have the best housing stock in Europe?
Exactly, rampant price rises is giving boosts to people who bought something in the past but is not investing anything in the stock of housing.
Incidentally, the whole logic behind the fact that a primary residence is exempt from CGT is because you need a primary residence and its a necessary expense, not simply an asset, to have a home to live in.
But then for inflation we treat houses only as assets rather than expenses.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
With all that investment, why don't we have the best housing stock in Europe?
Would you trade the average UK dwelling (house) for the average German dwelling (flat)? Didn't think so.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
Boris is genuinely funny. You are not (a trait you share with multiple PB-ers so don't get depressed)
That is about it. It's not much, is it? I wholly agree
But what the Fuck has Khan done apart from moan and whine? Anything?
That, in essence, was my Uber-driver's argument, and I can see his point. Everything is shit, at least with Boris as mayor you will have a laugh (and he won't have any significant power whereby he can damage the country)
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
The same observation shows that the Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on food prices either, but you don't seem to be arguing that inflation targetting is futile.
I certainly don't think that targetting CPIH instead is a panacea either because it still does nothing to address the relationship between monetary policy and asset bubbles. You would expect CPI and CPIH to move in sync because it just tracks owner occupiers' housing costs, not asset prices.
The fundamental reason they move in sync is because housing costs are a pretty small part of the basket: several per cent. Thus, current housing costs would not have a significant impact on today's inflation targetting. An asset price target, on the other hand, would have led to a significantly different policy during the 2010s. Put simply, trying to pop anything that vaguely resembles a bubble can throttle the rest of the economy.
Which put simply is the whole point of managing inflation. When the economy overheats you cool it down.
But instead the rest of the economy was put ahead while inflation went wild, but was disregarded as an "asset" rather than the primary cost people have to pay out of their budget.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
With all that investment, why don't we have the best housing stock in Europe?
Would you trade the average UK dwelling (house) for the average German dwelling (flat)? Didn't think so.
You do realise that Germany has ~50% more households than the UK, don't you?
I have never found Boris Johnson amusing in the slightest. He's like Mrs Brown's Boys. Plenty do. But there's no accounting for taste. Shit loads of kids too.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
The same observation shows that the Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on food prices either, but you don't seem to be arguing that inflation targetting is futile.
I certainly don't think that targetting CPIH instead is a panacea either because it still does nothing to address the relationship between monetary policy and asset bubbles. You would expect CPI and CPIH to move in sync because it just tracks owner occupiers' housing costs, not asset prices.
The fundamental reason they move in sync is because housing costs are a pretty small part of the basket: several per cent. Thus, current housing costs would not have a significant impact on today's inflation targetting. An asset price target, on the other hand, would have led to a significantly different policy during the 2010s. Put simply, trying to pop anything that vaguely resembles a bubble can throttle the rest of the economy.
Which put simply is the whole point of managing inflation. When the economy overheats you cool it down.
But instead the rest of the economy was put ahead while inflation went wild, but was disregarded as an "asset" rather than the primary cost people have to pay out of their budget.
Most of your mortgage is simply paying back a debt, which is clearly equivalent to building up assets. Debt service is a cost; until recently, this was the minority share of almost everybody's mortgage payment, but interest is now most of the mortgage payment for many people. Awkwardly, this cost goes up when interest rates go up, so interest rates directly "cause" the cost rather than reducing it.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker.
I don't think it is necessarily that, but that as a result of his time in power and its ending he is notably much more bitter and nasty about it now. Usually through proxies, but for his whinges about the Privileges Committee, but he cannot really go back to the genial bumbler persona - he wants power, he wants to hurt those who took power from him, and he cannot disguise that, and it makes him less amusing.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
Boris is genuinely funny. You are not (a trait you share with multiple PB-ers so don't get depressed)
That is about it. It's not much, is it? I wholly agree
But what the Fuck has Khan done apart from moan and whine? Anything?
That, in essence, was my Uber-driver's argument, and I can see his point. Everything is shit, at least with Boris as mayor you will have a laugh (and he won't have any significant power whereby he can damage the country)
Constitutional ignorance isn't normally your stock in trade so this is a little surprising, especially given more than one person has pointed out the significant and important powers the MoL has, in this very thread.
I don't see this power, at all. And if any exists, Boris as OK at it
Plus he's funny and cheering, to many people - hence my using my Muslim cab driver's opinion as anecdata. I see no reason why the driver should lie. But, whatever, yawn, maybe I am lying, jeezzz
However this one counter-argument, amongst all, did strike me, from @Stark_Dawning
"The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker."
That is pointed, lucid and well-aimed. Maybe Boris has gone too far to be the cheeky chappy again. Maybe he has crossed a line into UGH. If so, his political career is permanently doomed, and can never recover, even to being a mayor
I honestly dunno. But if I was, say, in constant email contact with Boris, I would advise him to think about that point. If he is now persona non grata with EVERYONE, then give up any political ambitions and yield to the writing and the cash
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
With all that investment, why don't we have the best housing stock in Europe?
FWIW, I think that German number includes commercial mortgages, not just residential ones.
"The government has “no true grasp on the costs” involved in preventing a collapse of Thames Water, with estimates presented to ministers and regulators suggesting the company could be facing a hole of £10bn in its finances, the Guardian can reveal.
The water company, which serves 15 million customers, is in emergency talks with the water regulator Ofwat, ministers and government departments after the departure of its chief executive and concerns over its ability to continue operating without a multibillion cash injection."
10 billion pounds, with bills also going up at least 25%, if not 40, to bail out decades of leveraging. An absolute scandal, ;there's no other way to describe it.
Why the hell should the taxpayer prevent a collapse of a private firm?
You privatise the gains, you privatise the losses. If Thames Water collapses then it collapses and the shareholders and bondholders get wiped out - that's the market working. Those shareholders and bondholders made a bad investment and bad investments should never be bailed out by taxpayers.
If Thames Water collapses and goes into bankruptcy, then the state can step in to buy out the assets at pennies on the pound to ensure continuity of service, but there is no reason whatsoever to bail out the firm, or its shareholders, or its bondholders.
The state needn't step in; that's why there are insolvency practitioners.
Macquarie Infrastructure Funds will lose all their money. The bond holders will lose around 30-40%.
I have never found Boris Johnson amusing in the slightest. He's like Mrs Brown's Boys. Plenty do. But there's no accounting for taste. Shit loads of kids too.
This is the one of the best explanations of how Boris operates, from Jeremy Vine.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
Why would an ex-PM who can make millions (and can't help spend more), want to bother himself as a lowly Mayor?
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
The same observation shows that the Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on food prices either, but you don't seem to be arguing that inflation targetting is futile.
I certainly don't think that targetting CPIH instead is a panacea either because it still does nothing to address the relationship between monetary policy and asset bubbles. You would expect CPI and CPIH to move in sync because it just tracks owner occupiers' housing costs, not asset prices.
The fundamental reason they move in sync is because housing costs are a pretty small part of the basket: several per cent. Thus, current housing costs would not have a significant impact on today's inflation targetting. An asset price target, on the other hand, would have led to a significantly different policy during the 2010s. Put simply, trying to pop anything that vaguely resembles a bubble can throttle the rest of the economy.
Which put simply is the whole point of managing inflation. When the economy overheats you cool it down.
But instead the rest of the economy was put ahead while inflation went wild, but was disregarded as an "asset" rather than the primary cost people have to pay out of their budget.
Most of your mortgage is simply paying back a debt, which is clearly equivalent to building up assets. Debt service is a cost; until recently, this was the minority share of almost everybody's mortgage payment, but interest is now most of the mortgage payment for many people. Awkwardly, this cost goes up when interest rates go up, so interest rates directly "cause" the cost rather than reducing it.
It is not remotely equivalent to building up an asset, because you require a primary residence to live in. That is why there is no CGT on houses for primary residence.
Yes for those who bought in the past the cost may be debt, but for people buying today the cost is cost, and that is what inflation is there to measure, what costs are like today versus the past. The fact that prior purchasers bills don't go up if there's rampant inflation doesn't take away from the fact that today's purchasers bills do and have done when there's been rampant inflation.
No, let’s not reverse Central Bank independence. If the results are not impressive now, they sure as hell weren’t before-hand.
Two points:
1. I agree that the transmission of interest rates into the homebuying economy doesn’t work as well anymore. But that’s a fix to investigate, not a wholesale surrender of independence.
2. The government has a role too, and not just in keeping public sector wages down. The government is stoking inflation with the triple lock, and refuses to look at supply side (market) reform. Evidence is growing that at least some of this inflation is price gouging. Too many sectors in the UK run as effective oligopolies.
Central bank independence in the way it was implemented in the UK is one of the worst examples of post-democratic hubris. You can't depoliticise something as fundamental as monetary policy without it undermining democratic government.
Tax is even more fundamental but HMRC is operationally independent. They each get a mission, do it without interference, and report to government on how they are doing it.
That might be a valid comparison if HMRC set its own tax rates.
The policy is the tax rate and the inflation target, each set by politicians. The operational details are up to the agency, and for the BoE it could be interest rates or other things. But the interest rate is not the aim of monetary policy; prices are; rates are fundamentally an operational tool.
The two cases would only be comparable if HMRC could modify the level of income tax or VAT in order to meet some predetermined revenue target.
The assertion that prices are the aim of monetary policy is part of the problem. Prices are only one aspect of monetary policy, and in any case, who is to say that 2% is the always the ideal level of inflation rather than 3% or -1% or 0%? Having a narrow technocratic mandate like that shuts down the scope of political debate.
You will struggle to convince any professional audience of any political persuasion that monetary policy is separate from prices and that you can have two targets for rates and prices. From central banks to opponents of CB independence to NGDP bloggers to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they all think monetary policy is primarily about the control of prices. And "who says 2%" is literally an elected politician; the technocratic part is how to achieve Mr Hunt's order.
Control of prices, but which prices?
The number one cost in the typical household's budget isn't food, gas or electricity it is housing.
The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing.
To be more precise - a minority of households, the ones with variable-rate mortgages, agreed their housing price years ago, and borrowed against it. Even among that minority, you do not adjust the "price of housing" using interest rates. It doesn't actually make housing more expensive or cheaper when you vary rates, except as a result of longer-working investment decisions.
No, not a minority, the average.
In the 1970s the largest expenditure on average in household budgets was food, but in recent decades it has been housing. And it is not even close.
Saying you do not adjust the price of housing using interest rates is as nonsensical as saying you do not adjust the price of food, or anything else, via interest rates.
Around 30 per cent of households own their house without debt. No impact. Around 35 per cent of households pay a rent on a house purchased by someone else. No immediate impact. A large share of the remaining households pay variable rate mortgages. Nevertheless, the actual house price they paid was agreed, typically, many years ago. They are no longer paying for their housing so much as a debt secured on a house, and it has no impact on the price they paid in 1990 or 2005.
Your logical is completely specious and flawed, its not only immediate impacts that matter. Indirect and longer term impacts add up too, which is the entire point of measuring inflation. Are you only looking at the immediate impact of rate changes when you look at the cost of food, or energy, or do you look at the longer-term changes?
Everyone pays for food, but despite 30% owning their house without debt the average UK household spends more on housing than food. Which means the other percentage of people who paying for housing are paying much more than they are on food.
Similarly houses are bought each year, so the price paid today matters not just the price of the past. Indeed measuring how prices have gone up today is supposed to be part of the point of inflation, but for the most critical part of the average household budget the cost is dismissed as an "asset" instead of a cost, which is what it is.
I was making an observation of the claim that ... let's see ... "The cost that the Bank's actions most immediately impact upon is housing". Perhaps you can complain to the author?
And it is. It impacts upon housing quicker than it impacts upon say food, but its not just the immediate impact which matters.
If you don't think it does, perhaps you can say which category of expenditure is more rapidly affected by rate changes?
What's happened to house prices since December 2021 when Bank Rate was more than 4% lower than today? Is it consistent with this story?
What has happened to the price of food since December 2021 when the bank rate was lower than today?
A bit of a war in the breadbasket of Europe? But either way, I wouldn't call it an immediate impact.
Oh so it's more complex than just pulling the lever and watching prices adjust in the direction you want? In that case why are you being obtuse about housing?
Because it demonstrates that Bank Rate does not have an immediate impact on house prices? Rates have gone to 4%. If including housing costs is the magic bullet, it's not working. If you want more evidence, how about the extreme co-movements of CPI and CPIH in a regime without house price targetting?
Its certainly had a much more immediate impact than it has on other things, which is the point. Indeed after decades of rampant house price rises, now prices have peaked and started to go down. Yes, prices going down in a supposed time of higher "inflation". What more evidence of an impact do you want?
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
Housing is, in fact, an asset. To note that households fund investment in housing by repaying their mortgages is not a fallacy.
With all that investment, why don't we have the best housing stock in Europe?
Would you trade the average UK dwelling (house) for the average German dwelling (flat)? Didn't think so.
Yes I think I would. According to a brief check I just made, the average UK home is about 80sqm with 2.4 inhabitants. According to destatis it's 47.7sqm per inhabitant.
If these figures are reliable, you get between a third and a half more space in a German dwelling than a British one.
Not to forget that there's 50% extra households in Germany, so the average UK home is costing more not the same as the average German one.
So households in Germany pay considerably less, for more space.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
Why would an ex-PM who can make millions (and can't help spend more), want to bother himself as a lowly Mayor?
Because he has an enormous ego?
Being relevant as more than a mouthy commentator would help his brand too.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
Boris is genuinely funny. You are not (a trait you share with multiple PB-ers so don't get depressed)
That is about it. It's not much, is it? I wholly agree
But what the Fuck has Khan done apart from moan and whine? Anything?
That, in essence, was my Uber-driver's argument, and I can see his point. Everything is shit, at least with Boris as mayor you will have a laugh (and he won't have any significant power whereby he can damage the country)
Constitutional ignorance isn't normally your stock in trade so this is a little surprising, especially given more than one person has pointed out the significant and important powers the MoL has, in this very thread.
I don't see this power, at all. And if any exists, Boris as OK at it
Plus he's funny and cheering, to many people - hence my using my Muslim cab driver's opinion as anecdata. I see no reason why the driver should lie. But, whatever, yawn, maybe I am lying, jeezzz
However this one counter-argument, amongst all, did strike me, from @Stark_Dawning
"The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker."
That is pointed, lucid and well-aimed. Maybe Boris has gone too far to be the cheeky chappy again. Maybe he has crossed a line into UGH. If so, his political career is permanently doomed, and can never recover, even to being a mayor
I honestly dunno. But if I was, say, in constant email contact with Boris, I would advise him to think about that point. If he is now persona non grata with EVERYONE, then give up any political ambitions and yield to the writing and the cash
Stark Dawning's point is only well-aimed if you engage with the bullshit criteria you judge on. Whether or not someone is entertaining is of profound importance if they're an entertainer. But is politics a branch of entertainment? You think so, and you pointedly and repeatedly point to sobriety, in all its meanings, as a problem.
Let me put it this way, if you've got someone on a cruise ship who's permanently sloshed, would you prefer them to be calling the bingo numbers or working the night shift on the bridge? Well between thee and me, I'll bang on the drum that says keep droopy drawers away from the tiller.
Yeah we need a little fun, but it's only the scotch, not the whole ship, that we want on the rocks.
To continue your interesting analogy. I'd say London Mayor, as a job is closer to "bingo caller" than captain (ie PM) on HMS Britannia. Maybe London Mayor = bingo caller also in charge of the dinner menu, and deck chess, and persuading peopke to join the pub quiz night. Boris is better at all this than Sadiq Khan
I have never found Boris Johnson amusing in the slightest. He's like Mrs Brown's Boys. Plenty do. But there's no accounting for taste. Shit loads of kids too.
Your last sentence put an image in my head of a gargantuan Boris pooping out his numerous progeny.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
Boris is genuinely funny. You are not (a trait you share with multiple PB-ers so don't get depressed)
That is about it. It's not much, is it? I wholly agree
But what the Fuck has Khan done apart from moan and whine? Anything?
That, in essence, was my Uber-driver's argument, and I can see his point. Everything is shit, at least with Boris as mayor you will have a laugh (and he won't have any significant power whereby he can damage the country)
Constitutional ignorance isn't normally your stock in trade so this is a little surprising, especially given more than one person has pointed out the significant and important powers the MoL has, in this very thread.
I don't see this power, at all. And if any exists, Boris as OK at it
Plus he's funny and cheering, to many people - hence my using my Muslim cab driver's opinion as anecdata. I see no reason why the driver should lie. But, whatever, yawn, maybe I am lying, jeezzz
However this one counter-argument, amongst all, did strike me, from @Stark_Dawning
"The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker."
That is pointed, lucid and well-aimed. Maybe Boris has gone too far to be the cheeky chappy again. Maybe he has crossed a line into UGH. If so, his political career is permanently doomed, and can never recover, even to being a mayor
I honestly dunno. But if I was, say, in constant email contact with Boris, I would advise him to think about that point. If he is now persona non grata with EVERYONE, then give up any political ambitions and yield to the writing and the cash
Stark Dawning's point is only well-aimed if you engage with the bullshit criteria you judge on. Whether or not someone is entertaining is of profound importance if they're an entertainer. But is politics a branch of entertainment? You think so, and you pointedly and repeatedly point to sobriety, in all its meanings, as a problem.
Let me put it this way, if you've got someone on a cruise ship who's permanently sloshed, would you prefer them to be calling the bingo numbers or working the night shift on the bridge? Well between thee and me, I'll bang on the drum that says keep droopy drawers away from the tiller.
Yeah we need a little fun, but it's only the scotch, not the whole ship, that we want on the rocks.
To continue your interesting analogy. I'd say London Mayor, as a job is closer to "bingo caller" than captain (ie PM) on HMS Britannia. Maybe London Mayor = bingo caller also in charge of the dinner menu, and deck chess, and persuading peopke to join the pub quiz night. Boris is better at all this than Sadiq Khan
We don't need dire prophecies of the havok Boris Johnson could wreak on London and the Metropolitan Police (I mean God forbid someone should lead them poorly), he's already been Mayor, and nothing particularly eventful happened. What's more interesting is whether he could even get into contention, given that he has indeed lost a lot of supporters from the leafier parts of London. But perhaps he could do a '2019' and find a new electoral base amongst the forgotten outer masses.
I have never found Boris Johnson amusing in the slightest. He's like Mrs Brown's Boys. Plenty do. But there's no accounting for taste. Shit loads of kids too.
Your last sentence put an image in my head of a gargantuan Boris pooping out his numerous progeny.
Time to nuke Edinburgh, actually nuke Scotland to be safe.
Like Indy, I hate spiders.
Stowaway African huntsman spider found in Edinburgh suitcase
The adventurous arachnid was discovered at a property in the Scottish capital after the resident returned from a work placement in Africa. Huntsman spiders use venom to immobilise their prey and can grow up to 30cm in leg span.
1. Wasps 2. Crocs and Gators (mainly because I'm so scared of them) 3. Rats 4. Snakes (Again scary) 5. Spiders of any great size 6. Scorpions - stay out of my shoes 7. Komodo Dragons - nasty bastards, and noticed 8. Flies - particularly Tsetse flies. 9. Leeches - that's nearly an armful! 10. Little bastard unidentifiable moving crap!
I'm afraid that you missed the planet's only truly arsehole species. Homo sapiens.
Unfair comment.
Humans are the species that stop you going to half the planet though.
Don't fancy Iran? It isn't the scorpions. South Africa not terribly safe? It isn't the big cats.
If this is a list of species which are arseholes to humans then mosquitoes win every time. Followed by various worms (such as schistosomes) and parasites.
But if not to humans, then there's an awful lot that goes own out there that you really don't want to know about.
The arsehole wasps aren't the stripy ones, the real arseholes are the Ichneumonidae that lay eggs in caterpillars, which then hatch and eat their way out from the inside, Aliens style. There's about 2500 species in the UK.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
Boris is genuinely funny. You are not (a trait you share with multiple PB-ers so don't get depressed)
That is about it. It's not much, is it? I wholly agree
But what the Fuck has Khan done apart from moan and whine? Anything?
That, in essence, was my Uber-driver's argument, and I can see his point. Everything is shit, at least with Boris as mayor you will have a laugh (and he won't have any significant power whereby he can damage the country)
Constitutional ignorance isn't normally your stock in trade so this is a little surprising, especially given more than one person has pointed out the significant and important powers the MoL has, in this very thread.
I don't see this power, at all. And if any exists, Boris as OK at it
Plus he's funny and cheering, to many people - hence my using my Muslim cab driver's opinion as anecdata. I see no reason why the driver should lie. But, whatever, yawn, maybe I am lying, jeezzz
However this one counter-argument, amongst all, did strike me, from @Stark_Dawning
"The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker."
That is pointed, lucid and well-aimed. Maybe Boris has gone too far to be the cheeky chappy again. Maybe he has crossed a line into UGH. If so, his political career is permanently doomed, and can never recover, even to being a mayor
I honestly dunno. But if I was, say, in constant email contact with Boris, I would advise him to think about that point. If he is now persona non grata with EVERYONE, then give up any political ambitions and yield to the writing and the cash
Stark Dawning's point is only well-aimed if you engage with the bullshit criteria you judge on. Whether or not someone is entertaining is of profound importance if they're an entertainer. But is politics a branch of entertainment? You think so, and you pointedly and repeatedly point to sobriety, in all its meanings, as a problem.
Let me put it this way, if you've got someone on a cruise ship who's permanently sloshed, would you prefer them to be calling the bingo numbers or working the night shift on the bridge? Well between thee and me, I'll bang on the drum that says keep droopy drawers away from the tiller.
Yeah we need a little fun, but it's only the scotch, not the whole ship, that we want on the rocks.
To continue your interesting analogy. I'd say London Mayor, as a job is closer to "bingo caller" than captain (ie PM) on HMS Britannia. Maybe London Mayor = bingo caller also in charge of the dinner menu, and deck chess, and persuading peopke to join the pub quiz night. Boris is better at all this than Sadiq Khan
We don't need dire prophecies of the havok Boris Johnson could wreak on London and the Metropolitan Police (I mean God forbid someone should lead them poorly), he's already been Mayor, and nothing particularly eventful happened. What's more interesting is whether he could even get into contention, given that he has indeed lost a lot of supporters from the leafier parts of London. But perhaps he could do a '2019' and find a new electoral base amongst the forgotten outer masses.
Boris's win was based on the doughnut strategy anyway- here's the ward level map from 2008;
And the equivalent from 2021;
The Conservatives have always tended to do better with Londoners who prefer not to see themselves as Londoners. That's fine as a base. But it's a narrowing base. And beyond a certain point, it flips to "We hate London"- in which case, why should people vote for you to be its Mayor? Boris '08 embraced the city, I don't know who else can do that for the Conservatives.
I have never found Boris Johnson amusing in the slightest. He's like Mrs Brown's Boys. Plenty do. But there's no accounting for taste. Shit loads of kids too.
Your last sentence put an image in my head of a gargantuan Boris pooping out his numerous progeny.
Muslim driver, probably Iraqi or Syrian, from his history. Not sure tho
Loathes Sadiq Khan: "useless". "Done nothing". "he moans and he is depressing". "Why do people vote for him"
Thinks the Tories are utter rubbish, and Boris was a crap prime minister. But - nonetheless - would like Boris back as mayor
True story!
I wonder if Boris could win as mayor again. It is very much his metier
A Boris who had stood down at his vaccine high, quite possibly. A lot of the unpleasantness would never have come to light, and his Prime Ministerial sucessors would still have looked beige and incompetent by comparison.
A struggle, sure- he'd have to finesse his Brexit stance, and he went too far down that road for it to be easy. And Mark The Hair- it's going, and Samson-like, that will be it for his powers. But yes, possible then. Not now, too much bad has come to light, and once seen it can't be unseen.
Besides, Taxi drivers loathing Khan isn't news. Too tolerant of Uber and too keen on cycleways. Ironic given Boris's promotion of cycling in the city.
Fair points. However it was an Uber driver
London Mayor, to me, seems like Boris' obvious, quickest route back to major political power, if he is so inclined
Khan is very beatable. Woudn't be easy, but Boris is the one who could do it, unlike these No Mark weirdos the Tories are vaguely promoting as candidates
Wishcasting again.
No, it's a genuine point
If Boris entered the race then the odds would change dramatically, overnight. Khan is crap and whiny, and everyone is bored of him. And he's trying for a third term? Really? Many will vote for him coz he's Labour and the other parties appear to compete to offer even less compelling candidates, but they are not eager. Khan is not liked, he does fuck all, but his competitors have done even fuck-all-er
Boris would be the exception. A lot of the shit people hate Boris for (often justifiably) would be irrelevant in a mayoral race
i reckon he could win. People want a mayor that cheers them up. That is basically the whole job. That's Boris
He would need the approval of Tories, in some way, I presume
The thought of somebody being "cheered up' by Boris Johnson - I find this not only perplexing but genuinely rather sad. What sort of a state must a person be in for this to happen? I can't believe there are many such people. We have a problem in society if there are.
Boris is genuinely funny. You are not (a trait you share with multiple PB-ers so don't get depressed)
That is about it. It's not much, is it? I wholly agree
But what the Fuck has Khan done apart from moan and whine? Anything?
That, in essence, was my Uber-driver's argument, and I can see his point. Everything is shit, at least with Boris as mayor you will have a laugh (and he won't have any significant power whereby he can damage the country)
Constitutional ignorance isn't normally your stock in trade so this is a little surprising, especially given more than one person has pointed out the significant and important powers the MoL has, in this very thread.
I don't see this power, at all. And if any exists, Boris as OK at it
Plus he's funny and cheering, to many people - hence my using my Muslim cab driver's opinion as anecdata. I see no reason why the driver should lie. But, whatever, yawn, maybe I am lying, jeezzz
However this one counter-argument, amongst all, did strike me, from @Stark_Dawning
"The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker."
That is pointed, lucid and well-aimed. Maybe Boris has gone too far to be the cheeky chappy again. Maybe he has crossed a line into UGH. If so, his political career is permanently doomed, and can never recover, even to being a mayor
I honestly dunno. But if I was, say, in constant email contact with Boris, I would advise him to think about that point. If he is now persona non grata with EVERYONE, then give up any political ambitions and yield to the writing and the cash
Stark Dawning's point is only well-aimed if you engage with the bullshit criteria you judge on. Whether or not someone is entertaining is of profound importance if they're an entertainer. But is politics a branch of entertainment? You think so, and you pointedly and repeatedly point to sobriety, in all its meanings, as a problem.
Let me put it this way, if you've got someone on a cruise ship who's permanently sloshed, would you prefer them to be calling the bingo numbers or working the night shift on the bridge? Well between thee and me, I'll bang on the drum that says keep droopy drawers away from the tiller.
Yeah we need a little fun, but it's only the scotch, not the whole ship, that we want on the rocks.
To continue your interesting analogy. I'd say London Mayor, as a job is closer to "bingo caller" than captain (ie PM) on HMS Britannia. Maybe London Mayor = bingo caller also in charge of the dinner menu, and deck chess, and persuading peopke to join the pub quiz night. Boris is better at all this than Sadiq Khan
We don't need dire prophecies of the havok Boris Johnson could wreak on London and the Metropolitan Police (I mean God forbid someone should lead them poorly), he's already been Mayor, and nothing particularly eventful happened. What's more interesting is whether he could even get into contention, given that he has indeed lost a lot of supporters from the leafier parts of London. But perhaps he could do a '2019' and find a new electoral base amongst the forgotten outer masses.
Boris's win was based on the doughnut strategy anyway- here's the ward level map from 2008;
And the equivalent from 2021;
The Conservatives have always tended to do better with Londoners who prefer not to see themselves as Londoners. That's fine as a base. But it's a narrowing base. And beyond a certain point, it flips to "We hate London"- in which case, why should people vote for you to be its Mayor? Boris '08 embraced the city, I don't know who else can do that for the Conservatives.
Inner London has almost always been Labour, with a few exceptions around Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster ie the most expensive bits.
It is Outer London the Conservatives can win overall if they are ahead nationally, albeit they are a long way from that at present
@RoryStewartUK Come on this is awful! One of the many reasons to be so angry with Boris Johnson was the isolationist populism that led to the appallingly managed deeply damaging abolition of DfiD - Keir should be better than this
@RoryStewartUK Come on this is awful! One of the many reasons to be so angry with Boris Johnson was the isolationist populism that led to the appallingly managed deeply damaging abolition of DfiD - Keir should be better than this
The damaging thing was not to scrap the unafforable and unpopular foreign aid budget at the same time as scrapping the department.
"The government has “no true grasp on the costs” involved in preventing a collapse of Thames Water, with estimates presented to ministers and regulators suggesting the company could be facing a hole of £10bn in its finances, the Guardian can reveal.
The water company, which serves 15 million customers, is in emergency talks with the water regulator Ofwat, ministers and government departments after the departure of its chief executive and concerns over its ability to continue operating without a multibillion cash injection."
10 billion pounds, with bills also going up at least 25%, if not 40, to bail out decades of leveraging. An absolute scandal, ;there's no other way to describe it.
Why the hell should the taxpayer prevent a collapse of a private firm?
You privatise the gains, you privatise the losses. If Thames Water collapses then it collapses and the shareholders and bondholders get wiped out - that's the market working. Those shareholders and bondholders made a bad investment and bad investments should never be bailed out by taxpayers.
If Thames Water collapses and goes into bankruptcy, then the state can step in to buy out the assets at pennies on the pound to ensure continuity of service, but there is no reason whatsoever to bail out the firm, or its shareholders, or its bondholders.
The state needn't step in; that's why there are insolvency practitioners.
Macquarie Infrastructure Funds will lose all their money. The bond holders will lose around 30-40%.
And someone else will own and run Thames Water.
Why will Macquarie lose any of their money ? They haven't been shareholders for half a decade. (Though they recently bought into another UK water company.) I've noted this at least half a dozen times in the last couple of days. Am I wrong ?
The state may well step in to take it into temporary public ownership. It is not the role of insolvency practitioners to ensure continued public service from bankrupt utilities.
Newsnight just put a map on the screen of all the English water companies which missed one of them out.
Provided by Ofwat ?
It actually missed about 12 of them out, but I think that may be because it was defining them as ‘water and sewerage companies’ rather than ‘water companies.’
It also missed off Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water which operates in the Marches as well.
Amusingly, Ofwat lists ‘Severn Trent’ and ‘Hafren Dyfrydwy’ as separate companies. Apparently it hasn’t dawned on them that it’s the same company using a Welsh name!
Comments
CPIH doesn't weigh housing as highly as it should because its only so-called 'net' costs due to the fallacy that housing is an asset rather than a cost.
He didn't half talk some bollocks.
What's not to like?
I certainly don't think that targetting CPIH instead is a panacea either because it still does nothing to address the relationship between monetary policy and asset bubbles. You would expect CPI and CPIH to move in sync because it just tracks owner occupiers' housing costs, not asset prices.
To exclude housing costs from inflation because they're not "real costs" absolutely is a fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Chenoweth
Incidentally, the whole logic behind the fact that a primary residence is exempt from CGT is because you need a primary residence and its a necessary expense, not simply an asset, to have a home to live in.
But then for inflation we treat houses only as assets rather than expenses.
That is about it. It's not much, is it? I wholly agree
But what the Fuck has Khan done apart from moan and whine? Anything?
That, in essence, was my Uber-driver's argument, and I can see his point. Everything is shit, at least with Boris as mayor you will have a laugh (and he won't have any significant power whereby he can damage the country)
But instead the rest of the economy was put ahead while inflation went wild, but was disregarded as an "asset" rather than the primary cost people have to pay out of their budget.
28m households in the UK, 42m in Germany.
He's like Mrs Brown's Boys. Plenty do.
But there's no accounting for taste.
Shit loads of kids too.
Plus he's funny and cheering, to many people - hence my using my Muslim cab driver's opinion as anecdata. I see no reason why the driver should lie. But, whatever, yawn, maybe I am lying, jeezzz
However this one counter-argument, amongst all, did strike me, from @Stark_Dawning
"The cheery-uppy Boris did exist once, but I think all that is long gone. There's almost something of the Jimmy Savile about Boris: now we know what he's actually like, what once seemed endearingly eccentric now seems altogether darker."
That is pointed, lucid and well-aimed. Maybe Boris has gone too far to be the cheeky chappy again. Maybe he has crossed a line into UGH. If so, his political career is permanently doomed, and can never recover, even to being a mayor
I honestly dunno. But if I was, say, in constant email contact with Boris, I would advise him to think about that point. If he is now persona non grata with EVERYONE, then give up any political ambitions and yield to the writing and the cash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ2Dy_6xx1g
Macquarie Infrastructure Funds will lose all their money.
The bond holders will lose around 30-40%.
And someone else will own and run Thames Water.
https://reaction.life/jeremy-vine-my-boris-story/
Yes for those who bought in the past the cost may be debt, but for people buying today the cost is cost, and that is what inflation is there to measure, what costs are like today versus the past. The fact that prior purchasers bills don't go up if there's rampant inflation doesn't take away from the fact that today's purchasers bills do and have done when there's been rampant inflation.
So households in Germany pay considerably less, for more space.
Don't fancy Iran? It isn't the scorpions.
South Africa not terribly safe? It isn't the big cats.
If this is a list of species which are arseholes to humans then mosquitoes win every time. Followed by various worms (such as schistosomes) and parasites.
But if not to humans, then there's an awful lot that goes own out there that you really don't want to know about.
The arsehole wasps aren't the stripy ones, the real arseholes are the Ichneumonidae that lay eggs in caterpillars, which then hatch and eat their way out from the inside, Aliens style. There's about 2500 species in the UK.
And the equivalent from 2021;
The Conservatives have always tended to do better with Londoners who prefer not to see themselves as Londoners. That's fine as a base. But it's a narrowing base. And beyond a certain point, it flips to "We hate London"- in which case, why should people vote for you to be its Mayor? Boris '08 embraced the city, I don't know who else can do that for the Conservatives.
Madonna intubated in ICU after being found unresponsive in NYC
https://nypost.com/2023/06/28/madonna-intubated-in-icu-after-being-found-unresponsive-in-nyc/
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1674072564459601923?s=20
It is Outer London the Conservatives can win overall if they are ahead nationally, albeit they are a long way from that at present
@RoryStewartUK
Come on this is awful! One of the many reasons to be so angry with Boris Johnson was the isolationist populism that led to the appallingly managed deeply damaging abolition of DfiD - Keir should be better than this
The damaging thing was not to scrap the unafforable and unpopular foreign aid budget at the same time as scrapping the department.
I've noted this at least half a dozen times in the last couple of days. Am I wrong ?
The state may well step in to take it into temporary public ownership. It is not the role of insolvency practitioners to ensure continued public service from bankrupt utilities.
It also missed off Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water which operates in the Marches as well.
Amusingly, Ofwat lists ‘Severn Trent’ and ‘Hafren Dyfrydwy’ as separate companies. Apparently it hasn’t dawned on them that it’s the same company using a Welsh name!