Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
"inflation" is a shorthand used to mean consumer price inflation, not asset price inflation. Are you disputing that consumer price inflation was low, or that this led the BOE like other central banks to keep nominal and real interest rates lower than before, or that this led to asset price inflation? I'm not sure which part of my analysis (none of which is original to me or especially controversial) you are objecting to. I don't disagree that central banks should have targeted a broader measure of inflation, BTW. Consumer price inflation was low because of imported consumer goods from China and elsewhere. They should target a measure of inflation in the domestic economy, like the GDP deflator, which was signalling that rates were too low. This is actually what the theoretical arguments in favour of inflation targeting would suggest. Targeting asset prices themselves would be a mistake, for lots of reasons.
By defining inflation in terms of consumer goods in an environment in which consumer goods were becoming cheaper and more plentiful due to globalisation, it set up a race to the bottom in which the currency had to be consistently devalued to prevent the nominal prices of consumer goods from falling as they should have done, all things being equal.
It wasn't so much that houses went up in value, but that the value of the currency went down to chase the falling price of goods. It was all a grotesque con that has done more than anything to lead the us into the social and economic malaise we now face.
Not a grotesque con but a mistake. Not a huge one, in the sense that rates shouldn't have been that much higher and house prices would still have gone up because lower and less volatile inflation means lower real rates which means higher asset prices, that's just an inescapable fact of life. Plus, not building houses was dumb, I'd blame successive governments for that. Is that the source of our malaise? No. That comes from a collapse in productivity growth (precise cause uncertain), an ageing population (personally I think this is the main thing) and social media (which has spread discontent, misinformation and division).
The great thing about traditional media is that it tended to take people out of their echo chambers.
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Out of interest: Say for the sake of argument that instead of buying your house by borrowing money from the bank then paying a mortgage every year, your house was bought by the bank, and you paid them rent every year. Also imagine for the sake of argument that these transactions were for the exact same amounts. Would you still say the house wasn't an asset of the bank? Or would it be an asset if the bank owned it, but consumption if you owned it?
The latter, when you buy it that is your consumption.
Housing is a necessary, consumption, cost for those who are paying for it to have a roof over their heads. So if you're renting, or buying, its consumption.
For those who own to make a profit, whether it be a bank or landlord or pension scheme letting it out, then its an asset.
Just as a stock of cars owned by a leasing company or car manufacturer are assets for them, but if you buy a car for yourself or lease one for yourself then its consumption.
This seems a weird way to look at it because in the two cases in the example (bank owns house and rents to you, you own house and pay mortgage payments to the bank) the cost to you of living in the exact same house is exactly the same.
But its consumption either way for the consumer. You don't have two simultaneous sets of consumption.
Rent is consumption for the consumer when they pay rent. Purchasing is consumption for the consumer when they purchase.
So the price should be consumption however the consumer chooses to pay, whether it be purchase, or rent, and should be in CPI either way.
The bank [if they're a landlord] since they're not living in it aren't consuming it, but their tenant is though. So its an asset for the bank, as they're owning it, but consumption for the tenant as they're letting it.
According to ISW, the ongoing Ukrainian advances in the Robotyne area are also likely intended to weaken Russian forces, who have invested significant effort, resources, and personnel to maintain their positions around Robotyne..
The capture of Robotyne then opens the way to Tokmak.
It's a long way to Tokmak, and even that is only about a third of the way to the Coast.
I presume the Russians have just reset their minefields a bit further south.
Well, I don't think it's that easy to do that, and as the amount of land gets narrower, the harder that gets.
Relatedly, a thread on how it apparently [*] gets a bit fiddly as you get pushed back beyond your own defensive lines.
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
Two problems.
One is that the sweet spot (LibLab works but SNP can go swivel) is awfully small to hit. Lots of potential to go wrong.
The other is the LibDems are liable to go a bit NIMBY. If you think the big problem needing solving is Getting More Everything Built, a decent Labour majority is the last best hope of that.
I don't say that with enthusiasm, Starmer is set to win because all the alternatives are even worse.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
I think CPIH does the trick. The price of property is only part of the cost factor though obviously interest rates being the main other. Of course lower interest rates immediately deflate housing cost (See 2008), which is then generally crept back up because the asset price tends to rise. UK housing in real terms is now very slightly above mid 2004 !
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
There was some PJ O'Rourke quote about how the world is full of ironies for the stupid.
Low consumer price inflation and low interest rates tend to go together, and low interest rates and high asset prices also tend to go together. Let us know if you want us to explain why that is.
If we had enforced a policy of "Last years population growth, *build* a bedroom per head", all those years, then asset inflation wouldn't have ended up in housing.
Hang on...
The US *did* build properties to match population growth, and still ended up with house price inflation.
The Spaniards and Portuguese massively outbuilt population growth, and likewise ended up with house price inflation.
While lack of housebuilding is the biggest issue, it is by no means the only one.
The mechanism behind US house price inflation was interesting - it seemed like a lot of money guys from New York failed to realise that in Florida, when they have a shortage of housing, they just build on more swamp.
It's also about cheap money looking for a home, of course. But the house price inflation only matches the UK thing in the areas where house building is as limited as here - see the SF insanity.
It's also worth saying that UK housing inflation hasn't been evenly spread - down South prices have gone insane, up north there are areas where houses are still priced at the same price they were in 2004.
Prices have gone insane up North too, even if they're even further insane down South.
House price to income ratios used to be 3x in the North West, they're now 6.2x - that's more than doubled and is very insane.
House prices in the North East have gone up by 17% since 2008. In the same period house prices in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and Wales have gone up by around 45% and in Scotland by 30%.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
I am curious. Since Right to Buy there has been a perilous lack of house building in many places. You want to point *only* at Labour's 13 years and not the decade and a half before and nearly the same after the Labour years?
Surely this is a prime example of shit policy set into concrete by multiple governments of multiple parties.
The key point about Right to Buy, which TSE ignores, is that central government snaffled the majority of the proceeds.
That was perhaps the single worst decision of the Thatcher years in relation to the country's political economy.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher, youre supposed to be blaming Brexit.
Labour spent buckets of cash between 97 and 2010 and elected not to put it in to housebuilding.
In 2010 the LDs had their chance and didnt push for housebuilding either in the coalition.
The Tories since 2016 have been a shitshow and havent built much either.
In the 30 years since Thatcher went all we have had is moany twats who havent done anything about the things theyre complaining about, but its so much more comforting to blame a dead woman than actually do something.
Thanks for that extended whinge.
Have you anything to say about the essential point ? The Conservative governments of the 80s funded much of their spending from asset sales. It was a neat political trick which their successors adopted - and over the course of decades very bad for the country's economy.
Unlike you appear to be, I am not particularly attached to any of our political parties.
Ive said it. It was a long time ago - half yours and mine life span to date,
Why pick on council receipts, you could focus on oil revenues or defence spending. The past is gone its only the future that matters and none of the political parties have any plan to address the lack of housing and infrastructure. Frankly that concerns me a lot more than the pre internet era.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on which party I support.
Labour actually has a housing plan. The scheme to give local authorities the power to compulsorily acquire land without paying the premium for expected value with housing permission could make a very large difference, depending on how energetically it is implemented.
It's the first policy from them in a long time that I'm genuinely enthusiastic about.
The block, at the moment, for property construction is the local monopolies created by giving a single, big, firm the housing development for an area.
This suits many of the players. The politicians can triangulate - lots of planning permissions given out, but the rate of building is much lower. The NIMBYs get slower building. Those worried about prices are kept happy. The house building firms get a steady flow of work. As do their sub contractors and workers. The shareholders of the big firms see house prices as stable - making their bet a safe one.
Unless the pattern of monopoly/duopoly development is dealt with, more land with planning permission won’t change things.
Slightly different pattern of incentives, though.
If you are a commercial developer, it can be rational to stop building houses- once you have the land and permission, you want to wait until you can sell the resulting houses for as much profit as possible. See the current falloff in new house completions;
The state has a different success criterion; number built. Probably a steadier (but lower) work and income flow for builders and contractors.
I don't know if Starmer's plans will be enough, but they should help, and it's hard to see any current version of Conservatism doing the necessary.
The original reason that Adam Smith warned against monopolies was that price fixing is nearly inevitable. A sellers strike is part of that.
When the price of TVs fell year on year for decades, the TV makers didn't stop producing TVs. Why? Because the other guys would take the market.
The Victorians/Edwardians recognised this - hence limiting developers to one street (or even half a street) in a development. Which is why, when you go down a road of semis from that period, you see a run of identical houses, then a slightly different design for a further x houses...
If the council buys some land, I will bet they partner up with a big firm. Probably on profit share. Strangely, what will happen is... just the same.
That's quite possible. It will be a big test of whether a Starmer government is any better than what we've had.
The answer to that question is almost certainly no. That said, a coalition government with all the dynamism that the tensions of such a system of government cause, might well achieve it.
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
I am curious. Since Right to Buy there has been a perilous lack of house building in many places. You want to point *only* at Labour's 13 years and not the decade and a half before and nearly the same after the Labour years?
Surely this is a prime example of shit policy set into concrete by multiple governments of multiple parties.
The key point about Right to Buy, which TSE ignores, is that central government snaffled the majority of the proceeds.
That was perhaps the single worst decision of the Thatcher years in relation to the country's political economy.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher, youre supposed to be blaming Brexit.
Labour spent buckets of cash between 97 and 2010 and elected not to put it in to housebuilding.
In 2010 the LDs had their chance and didnt push for housebuilding either in the coalition.
The Tories since 2016 have been a shitshow and havent built much either.
In the 30 years since Thatcher went all we have had is moany twats who havent done anything about the things theyre complaining about, but its so much more comforting to blame a dead woman than actually do something.
Thanks for that extended whinge.
Have you anything to say about the essential point ? The Conservative governments of the 80s funded much of their spending from asset sales. It was a neat political trick which their successors adopted - and over the course of decades very bad for the country's economy.
Unlike you appear to be, I am not particularly attached to any of our political parties.
Ive said it. It was a long time ago - half yours and mine life span to date,
Why pick on council receipts, you could focus on oil revenues or defence spending. The past is gone its only the future that matters and none of the political parties have any plan to address the lack of housing and infrastructure. Frankly that concerns me a lot more than the pre internet era.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on which party I support.
Labour actually has a housing plan. The scheme to give local authorities the power to compulsorily acquire land without paying the premium for expected value with housing permission could make a very large difference, depending on how energetically it is implemented.
It's the first policy from them in a long time that I'm genuinely enthusiastic about.
The block, at the moment, for property construction is the local monopolies created by giving a single, big, firm the housing development for an area.
This suits many of the players. The politicians can triangulate - lots of planning permissions given out, but the rate of building is much lower. The NIMBYs get slower building. Those worried about prices are kept happy. The house building firms get a steady flow of work. As do their sub contractors and workers. The shareholders of the big firms see house prices as stable - making their bet a safe one.
Unless the pattern of monopoly/duopoly development is dealt with, more land with planning permission won’t change things.
Slightly different pattern of incentives, though.
If you are a commercial developer, it can be rational to stop building houses- once you have the land and permission, you want to wait until you can sell the resulting houses for as much profit as possible. See the current falloff in new house completions;
The state has a different success criterion; number built. Probably a steadier (but lower) work and income flow for builders and contractors.
I don't know if Starmer's plans will be enough, but they should help, and it's hard to see any current version of Conservatism doing the necessary.
The original reason that Adam Smith warned against monopolies was that price fixing is nearly inevitable. A sellers strike is part of that.
When the price of TVs fell year on year for decades, the TV makers didn't stop producing TVs. Why? Because the other guys would take the market.
The Victorians/Edwardians recognised this - hence limiting developers to one street (or even half a street) in a development. Which is why, when you go down a road of semis from that period, you see a run of identical houses, then a slightly different design for a further x houses...
If the council buys some land, I will bet they partner up with a big firm. Probably on profit share. Strangely, what will happen is... just the same.
That's quite possible. It will be a big test of whether a Starmer government is any better than what we've had.
The answer to that question is almost certainly no. That said, a coalition government with all the dynamism that the tensions of such a system of government cause, might well achieve it.
I think I disagree. Though I am by no means certain. I would find it hard to believe that a Starmer government could be worse- at last in its first term - than what we have had since 2017.
Using the latest polls and EMA, if there were a Genral Election TODAY, Electoral Calculus shows a Labour majority of 230, and the LIbDems in third place on 40 seats.
But what is the trend?
The trend since the last GE (ignoring the Truss blip) for the next twelve months is as follows:
This gives Labour majority of 410 and the LibDems in second place.
The reason this is IMO unlikely is that it assumes that the pattern of steadily declining Tory support since 2019 continues. I think they've pretty much reached their floor of support, though in terms of actual turnout they are quite likely to have a further drop.
Nonetheless I still think Labourt has a steady lead in the high teens, and I'm not worried about the marginal tightening.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
There was some PJ O'Rourke quote about how the world is full of ironies for the stupid.
Low consumer price inflation and low interest rates tend to go together, and low interest rates and high asset prices also tend to go together. Let us know if you want us to explain why that is.
If we had enforced a policy of "Last years population growth, *build* a bedroom per head", all those years, then asset inflation wouldn't have ended up in housing.
Hang on...
The US *did* build properties to match population growth, and still ended up with house price inflation.
The Spaniards and Portuguese massively outbuilt population growth, and likewise ended up with house price inflation.
While lack of housebuilding is the biggest issue, it is by no means the only one.
The mechanism behind US house price inflation was interesting - it seemed like a lot of money guys from New York failed to realise that in Florida, when they have a shortage of housing, they just build on more swamp.
It's also about cheap money looking for a home, of course. But the house price inflation only matches the UK thing in the areas where house building is as limited as here - see the SF insanity.
It's also worth saying that UK housing inflation hasn't been evenly spread - down South prices have gone insane, up north there are areas where houses are still priced at the same price they were in 2004.
Prices have gone insane up North too, even if they're even further insane down South.
House price to income ratios used to be 3x in the North West, they're now 6.2x - that's more than doubled and is very insane.
House prices in the North East have gone up by 17% since 2008. In the same period house prices in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and Wales have gone up by around 45% and in Scotland by 30%.
Not exactly what I would call insane.
CPIH index for July 2008 was 87.1, it's now 129. So house prices in these areas have slightly fallen in real terms.
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
Two problems.
One is that the sweet spot (LibLab works but SNP can go swivel) is awfully small to hit. Lots of potential to go wrong.
The other is the LibDems are liable to go a bit NIMBY. If you think the big problem needing solving is Getting More Everything Built, a decent Labour majority is the last best hope of that.
I don't say that with enthusiasm, Starmer is set to win because all the alternatives are even worse.
If Labour get a big majority that will spell disaster for the country. This lot are no where near the quality of many of the people that drove the 1997 Labour win. As I have said before, most would struggle to get a lower middle management job in the private sector.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
There was some PJ O'Rourke quote about how the world is full of ironies for the stupid.
Low consumer price inflation and low interest rates tend to go together, and low interest rates and high asset prices also tend to go together. Let us know if you want us to explain why that is.
If we had enforced a policy of "Last years population growth, *build* a bedroom per head", all those years, then asset inflation wouldn't have ended up in housing.
Hang on...
The US *did* build properties to match population growth, and still ended up with house price inflation.
The Spaniards and Portuguese massively outbuilt population growth, and likewise ended up with house price inflation.
While lack of housebuilding is the biggest issue, it is by no means the only one.
The mechanism behind US house price inflation was interesting - it seemed like a lot of money guys from New York failed to realise that in Florida, when they have a shortage of housing, they just build on more swamp.
It's also about cheap money looking for a home, of course. But the house price inflation only matches the UK thing in the areas where house building is as limited as here - see the SF insanity.
It's also worth saying that UK housing inflation hasn't been evenly spread - down South prices have gone insane, up north there are areas where houses are still priced at the same price they were in 2004.
Prices have gone insane up North too, even if they're even further insane down South.
House price to income ratios used to be 3x in the North West, they're now 6.2x - that's more than doubled and is very insane.
House prices in the North East have gone up by 17% since 2008. In the same period house prices in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and Wales have gone up by around 45% and in Scotland by 30%.
Not exactly what I would call insane.
Nice try, but the original claim was 2004 which is when house prices were much more reasonable. Considering 2008 was already a peak, house price to income ratios going even further up from what was already a peak is insane yes. They should have gone down from then.
For almost all of the 1980s and 1990s Northern house price to earning ratios were at or below 3x apart from a brief peak 1990-1993 where they surged to around 3.5x and never even reached 4x before crashing back down to 3x. So given that, what would you call a house price to income ratio of 6.2x today other than insane?
We should aim to get house price to income ratios back down to 3x.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
There was some PJ O'Rourke quote about how the world is full of ironies for the stupid.
Low consumer price inflation and low interest rates tend to go together, and low interest rates and high asset prices also tend to go together. Let us know if you want us to explain why that is.
If we had enforced a policy of "Last years population growth, *build* a bedroom per head", all those years, then asset inflation wouldn't have ended up in housing.
Hang on...
The US *did* build properties to match population growth, and still ended up with house price inflation.
The Spaniards and Portuguese massively outbuilt population growth, and likewise ended up with house price inflation.
While lack of housebuilding is the biggest issue, it is by no means the only one.
The mechanism behind US house price inflation was interesting - it seemed like a lot of money guys from New York failed to realise that in Florida, when they have a shortage of housing, they just build on more swamp.
It's also about cheap money looking for a home, of course. But the house price inflation only matches the UK thing in the areas where house building is as limited as here - see the SF insanity.
It's also worth saying that UK housing inflation hasn't been evenly spread - down South prices have gone insane, up north there are areas where houses are still priced at the same price they were in 2004.
Prices have gone insane up North too, even if they're even further insane down South.
House price to income ratios used to be 3x in the North West, they're now 6.2x - that's more than doubled and is very insane.
House prices in the North East have gone up by 17% since 2008. In the same period house prices in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and Wales have gone up by around 45% and in Scotland by 30%.
Not exactly what I would call insane.
Nice try, but the original claim was 2004 which is when house prices were much more reasonable. Considering 2008 was already a peak, house price to income ratios going even further up from what was already a peak is insane yes. They should have gone down from then.
For almost all of the 1980s and 1990s Northern house price to earning ratios were at or below 3x apart from a brief peak 1990-1993 where they surged to around 3.5x and never even reached 4x before crashing back down to 3x. So given that, what would you call a house price to income ratio of 6.2x today other than insane?
We should aim to get house price to income ratios back down to 3x.
I'd like to check what you're saying but I can't because I can't find a decent wage-time series. Do you know of any ?
The BoE helpfully has a record of interest rates going back to 1694, Nationwide does the House prices and the Gov't provides CPIH. But I can't find a reliable wage series anywhere.
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
This is undoubtedly the optimal result, and I hope it happens. The engineering of it has a problem. If the Not Tory vote acts rationally it will vote Labour in seats it can win, and LD likewise. As there are very few LD/Lab fights the rational Not Tory vote maximises the chance of Labour getting +325 seats needed for the overall majority.
In fact the LD voter needs the Tories to win some seats Labour could win, while itself getting all the seats off the Tories it can. This is not easy to fix or communicate.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
I think CPIH does the trick. The price of property is only part of the cost factor though obviously interest rates being the main other. Of course lower interest rates immediately deflate housing cost (See 2008), which is then generally crept back up because the asset price tends to rise. UK housing in real terms is now very slightly above mid 2004 !
Adjusted for Real terms (Nationwide / CPIH)
CPIH is better than CPI, but still massively undervalues the cost of housing, and does not include the cost of housing itself.
House prices themselves should be directly in the basket, just as car prices and other prices are.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
I am curious. Since Right to Buy there has been a perilous lack of house building in many places. You want to point *only* at Labour's 13 years and not the decade and a half before and nearly the same after the Labour years?
Surely this is a prime example of shit policy set into concrete by multiple governments of multiple parties.
The key point about Right to Buy, which TSE ignores, is that central government snaffled the majority of the proceeds.
That was perhaps the single worst decision of the Thatcher years in relation to the country's political economy.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher, youre supposed to be blaming Brexit.
Labour spent buckets of cash between 97 and 2010 and elected not to put it in to housebuilding.
In 2010 the LDs had their chance and didnt push for housebuilding either in the coalition.
The Tories since 2016 have been a shitshow and havent built much either.
In the 30 years since Thatcher went all we have had is moany twats who havent done anything about the things theyre complaining about, but its so much more comforting to blame a dead woman than actually do something.
Thanks for that extended whinge.
Have you anything to say about the essential point ? The Conservative governments of the 80s funded much of their spending from asset sales. It was a neat political trick which their successors adopted - and over the course of decades very bad for the country's economy.
Unlike you appear to be, I am not particularly attached to any of our political parties.
Ive said it. It was a long time ago - half yours and mine life span to date,
Why pick on council receipts, you could focus on oil revenues or defence spending. The past is gone its only the future that matters and none of the political parties have any plan to address the lack of housing and infrastructure. Frankly that concerns me a lot more than the pre internet era.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on which party I support.
Labour actually has a housing plan. The scheme to give local authorities the power to compulsorily acquire land without paying the premium for expected value with housing permission could make a very large difference, depending on how energetically it is implemented.
It's the first policy from them in a long time that I'm genuinely enthusiastic about.
The block, at the moment, for property construction is the local monopolies created by giving a single, big, firm the housing development for an area.
This suits many of the players. The politicians can triangulate - lots of planning permissions given out, but the rate of building is much lower. The NIMBYs get slower building. Those worried about prices are kept happy. The house building firms get a steady flow of work. As do their sub contractors and workers. The shareholders of the big firms see house prices as stable - making their bet a safe one.
Unless the pattern of monopoly/duopoly development is dealt with, more land with planning permission won’t change things.
Slightly different pattern of incentives, though.
If you are a commercial developer, it can be rational to stop building houses- once you have the land and permission, you want to wait until you can sell the resulting houses for as much profit as possible. See the current falloff in new house completions;
The state has a different success criterion; number built. Probably a steadier (but lower) work and income flow for builders and contractors.
I don't know if Starmer's plans will be enough, but they should help, and it's hard to see any current version of Conservatism doing the necessary.
The original reason that Adam Smith warned against monopolies was that price fixing is nearly inevitable. A sellers strike is part of that.
When the price of TVs fell year on year for decades, the TV makers didn't stop producing TVs. Why? Because the other guys would take the market.
The Victorians/Edwardians recognised this - hence limiting developers to one street (or even half a street) in a development. Which is why, when you go down a road of semis from that period, you see a run of identical houses, then a slightly different design for a further x houses...
If the council buys some land, I will bet they partner up with a big firm. Probably on profit share. Strangely, what will happen is... just the same.
That's quite possible. It will be a big test of whether a Starmer government is any better than what we've had.
The answer to that question is almost certainly no. That said, a coalition government with all the dynamism that the tensions of such a system of government cause, might well achieve it.
I think I disagree. Though I am by no means certain. I would find it hard to believe that a Starmer government could be worse- at last in its first term - than what we have had since 2017.
It is a low bar to be fair, though people on the left in practice tend to level things down rather than drag things up (cue howls of indignation and selective examples from some even though they know it is true) . Hence the rather cliched attempt to underline this with Johnson's "levelling up" agenda.
to anyone thinking that the US is not slow walking aid to ukraine..... biden didnt use all the aid money last year ... 2+ billion was returned.... stated 12 F16s would cost 1.5 billion... a lie blocked the transfer of F-16s from other countries for a year 100s of uparmored HMMWVs still being scrapped 0 tanks delivered to ukraine (still being held in germany) 1000+ M1117s that were pledged last year still on hold 400+ avengers in storage in PA about to be scrapped 400+ M198 155mm cannons rusting in CA... 3 million rounds of cluster munitions we cant use (but they can) in storage.. only a few sent. M26 rockets we can no longer use... but they can.. sitting in storage M57 rockets about to be scrapped (being replaced) in storage
none of the transfers would cost anything but transport fees that europe would gladly pay for...
in MOST issues sending stuff to ukraine would SAVE the us disposal fees that are expensive....
biden has stated that ukraine has everything they have ask for.... that is a flat out lie.
the republicans issue with this is that if we are funding a war or backing them... let them win or dont do it... they need everything we can send to them... and NO fixed wing aircraft, 0 tanks in ukraine, and blocking ammo is NOT giving them the things they need to win..
trump is a idiot, and now with the "ukraine has been given everything they have ask for " lie makes biden a liar... our leaders on both sides have let ukraine down, and the world sees it. do we really want a anti american europe? if ukraine falls or bleeds to death someone will ask who allowed it.. and having fields full of weapons in the US going to scrap will provide the answer. if biden wants a entire continent to distrust us, he is doing a good job of making that happen.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
There was some PJ O'Rourke quote about how the world is full of ironies for the stupid.
Low consumer price inflation and low interest rates tend to go together, and low interest rates and high asset prices also tend to go together. Let us know if you want us to explain why that is.
If we had enforced a policy of "Last years population growth, *build* a bedroom per head", all those years, then asset inflation wouldn't have ended up in housing.
Hang on...
The US *did* build properties to match population growth, and still ended up with house price inflation.
The Spaniards and Portuguese massively outbuilt population growth, and likewise ended up with house price inflation.
While lack of housebuilding is the biggest issue, it is by no means the only one.
The mechanism behind US house price inflation was interesting - it seemed like a lot of money guys from New York failed to realise that in Florida, when they have a shortage of housing, they just build on more swamp.
It's also about cheap money looking for a home, of course. But the house price inflation only matches the UK thing in the areas where house building is as limited as here - see the SF insanity.
It's also worth saying that UK housing inflation hasn't been evenly spread - down South prices have gone insane, up north there are areas where houses are still priced at the same price they were in 2004.
Prices have gone insane up North too, even if they're even further insane down South.
House price to income ratios used to be 3x in the North West, they're now 6.2x - that's more than doubled and is very insane.
House prices in the North East have gone up by 17% since 2008. In the same period house prices in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and Wales have gone up by around 45% and in Scotland by 30%.
Not exactly what I would call insane.
The pound had an average inflation rate of 3.63% per year between 2008 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 70.71%.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
There was some PJ O'Rourke quote about how the world is full of ironies for the stupid.
Low consumer price inflation and low interest rates tend to go together, and low interest rates and high asset prices also tend to go together. Let us know if you want us to explain why that is.
If we had enforced a policy of "Last years population growth, *build* a bedroom per head", all those years, then asset inflation wouldn't have ended up in housing.
Hang on...
The US *did* build properties to match population growth, and still ended up with house price inflation.
The Spaniards and Portuguese massively outbuilt population growth, and likewise ended up with house price inflation.
While lack of housebuilding is the biggest issue, it is by no means the only one.
The mechanism behind US house price inflation was interesting - it seemed like a lot of money guys from New York failed to realise that in Florida, when they have a shortage of housing, they just build on more swamp.
It's also about cheap money looking for a home, of course. But the house price inflation only matches the UK thing in the areas where house building is as limited as here - see the SF insanity.
It's also worth saying that UK housing inflation hasn't been evenly spread - down South prices have gone insane, up north there are areas where houses are still priced at the same price they were in 2004.
Prices have gone insane up North too, even if they're even further insane down South.
House price to income ratios used to be 3x in the North West, they're now 6.2x - that's more than doubled and is very insane.
House prices in the North East have gone up by 17% since 2008. In the same period house prices in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and Wales have gone up by around 45% and in Scotland by 30%.
Not exactly what I would call insane.
Insane or not, massive regional variation is not exactly helpful when trying to devise a national measure of inflation. Part 94 in the series All Economic Statistics are Rubbish.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
Gay marriage (but not in the English State Church, it must be admitted). Er ... they finished Kings Cross station refurbishment? Albeit begun before 2010.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. Right now I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. If they are outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
Indeed.
If you sought Malkinson's opinion, given what I have seen of him on TV, he would seek unreasonable and absurd criteria for the enquiry.
Such as promptly finding out the truth, naming the bad actors and recommending substantial and effective reform.
Something that is worth looking at is the institutional effort that one part of the system gives to protect another.
The story of the Hillsborough enquiries and the government interaction with them is full of Ministers being misled or flat out lied to, by permanent officials, to prevent an enquiry that would show the police in a bad light.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
Nor would I. The evidence of a different state of play would be one in which the first thing to do following such scandals is for the police to investigate the criminality of those accountable in top positions and hold the inquiry after their trials not instead.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
Nor would I. The evidence of a different state of play would be one in which the first thing to do following such scandals is for the police to investigate the criminality of those accountable in top positions and hold the inquiry after their trials not instead.
Didn't the law on corporate manslaughter come in after the deaths at Chester, however? I don't even know if it would be applicable in a similar case today.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
The Edinburgh Trams inquiry...
Isn't that stalled by everyone in the enquiry waiting for a tram? At a stop that will never be built?
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
We aren't on the verge of bankruptcy with a 10% deficit two years after the recession ended.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
We aren't on the verge of bankruptcy with a 10% deficit two years after the recession ended.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
[Source: ONS for both]
Curious how that is "worse"?
You and I are both still here, Bart, so that's pretty good.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
“We had unprecedented inflation because we had low inflation.” You could give Orwell a run for his money.
"inflation" is a shorthand used to mean consumer price inflation, not asset price inflation. Are you disputing that consumer price inflation was low, or that this led the BOE like other central banks to keep nominal and real interest rates lower than before, or that this led to asset price inflation? I'm not sure which part of my analysis (none of which is original to me or especially controversial) you are objecting to. I don't disagree that central banks should have targeted a broader measure of inflation, BTW. Consumer price inflation was low because of imported consumer goods from China and elsewhere. They should target a measure of inflation in the domestic economy, like the GDP deflator, which was signalling that rates were too low. This is actually what the theoretical arguments in favour of inflation targeting would suggest. Targeting asset prices themselves would be a mistake, for lots of reasons.
By defining inflation in terms of consumer goods in an environment in which consumer goods were becoming cheaper and more plentiful due to globalisation, it set up a race to the bottom in which the currency had to be consistently devalued to prevent the nominal prices of consumer goods from falling as they should have done, all things being equal.
It wasn't so much that houses went up in value, but that the value of the currency went down to chase the falling price of goods. It was all a grotesque con that has done more than anything to lead the us into the social and economic malaise we now face.
"a race to the bottom in which the currency had to be consistently devalued"
Against what was the pound being consistently devalued?
For that matter, what other developed world country's currency was being consistently devalued?
Indeed, I'd argue the lack of China currency appreciation (or pound/dollar/Euro depreciation relative to it) was a major part of the problem.
Yes, they were all being devalued simuntaneously against developing world currencies, but the major traded pairs didn’t change too much so no-one really noticed.
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
We aren't on the verge of bankruptcy with a 10% deficit two years after the recession ended.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
[Source: ONS for both]
Curious how that is "worse"?
Isn't inequality in LE going up?
Also - what about immigration of young people? Have you controlled for that?
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
Nor would I. The evidence of a different state of play would be one in which the first thing to do following such scandals is for the police to investigate the criminality of those accountable in top positions and hold the inquiry after their trials not instead.
Didn't the law on corporate manslaughter come in after the deaths at Chester, however? I don't even know if it would be applicable in a similar case today.
Letby will be stalled by "Police Enquiries" till the other side of the election. This will be, firstly, an enquiry into whether she did more than she has been charged with so far. When that is complete, then they will look at culpability of other officials.
Hopefully by then, the senior officials will have all moved to other, better paying jobs. And/Or retired to a bit of consulting and board membership - in the paediatric safeguarding area, probably.
So it would serve no purpose to be "vindictive" and prosecute people for committing crimes in covering up what was happening.
The election will provide a handy cover to lose some files, new government busy, important matters etc.
With a bit of luck we might not even need an equity to hide the issue - it will just be left to rot, with the occasional clip on the news from the protest group for the families.
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
We aren't on the verge of bankruptcy with a 10% deficit two years after the recession ended.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
[Source: ONS for both]
Curious how that is "worse"?
Isn't inequality in LE going up?
Also - what about immigration of young people? Have you controlled for that?
Life expectancy is defined as expected life at birth, I think, so it would control for the immigration of young people.
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
We aren't on the verge of bankruptcy with a 10% deficit two years after the recession ended.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
[Source: ONS for both]
Curious how that is "worse"?
Isn't inequality in LE going up?
Also - what about immigration of young people? Have you controlled for that?
I haven't controlled for anything, I Googled the data and took the data directly from the ONS website.
I kind of assume the ONS have controlled for things. I'm not going to do their job for them, for a quick discussion on the internet.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
The Edinburgh Trams inquiry...
Isn't that stalled by everyone in the enquiry waiting for a tram? At a stop that will never be built?
Realised that was wrong - they are waiting for a ferry.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
Unemployment halved since 2010, school standards up with more outstanding and less inadequate schools, the EBacc ensuring more traditional subjects studied at GCSE and free schools.
Whole life sentences for child murderers and police murderers, serial killers and terrorists. The lowest earners taken out of income tax, married couples no longer have to pay IHT up to estates of £1 million and top rate income tax down from 50% to 45%.
Free movement ended and replaced by a points system improving wages for the lowest earners. Local Plans and neighbourhood plans mean councils and local people can shape where development will go without a developers free for all.
A government now reducing the deficit and inflation too. Homosexual marriage too came in under the Coalition government
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
I'm highly partisan and I also agree that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority for the reasons you give. That would be a terrific outcome.
Unfortunately a non-partisan analysis (to the extent that is possible) indicates a Labour overall majority and most punters agree as can be seen on Betfair. I don't think the majority will be as great as my earlier wind-up post indicated! But I would take 100/1 on the Labour majority being greater than 100.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
I think CPIH does the trick. The price of property is only part of the cost factor though obviously interest rates being the main other. Of course lower interest rates immediately deflate housing cost (See 2008), which is then generally crept back up because the asset price tends to rise. UK housing in real terms is now very slightly above mid 2004 !
Adjusted for Real terms (Nationwide / CPIH)
CPIH is better than CPI, but still massively undervalues the cost of housing, and does not include the cost of housing itself.
House prices themselves should be directly in the basket, just as car prices and other prices are.
I've only used CPIH series as a broad inflation measure. Here this might show it better.
Blue line is CPIH Red line is house prices.
Both lines are rebased to match in July 2004.
Other inflation measures and house price series are available. Like I say I can't find a wage series though.
The fundamental problem behind a lot of scandals is that no-one really thinks about or pays regard to the human beings involved.
Today's example is the Criminal Cases Review Commission whose behaviour in the Andy Malkinson case is under question. So it announces an inquiry but does not have the wit or decency to consult Andy Malkinson about its terms or even to tell him of the announcement before it goes to the press.
A small example maybe but so telling of an attitude of mind which refuses to understand that these bodies and services are meant to be there to serve people.
What would it have cost them to inform him in advance? What would it have cost them to listen to his views?
Was there nobody in such an organisation to remember that this review is being undertaken because of the harm done to a human being? Was there nobody to think of how he might be feeling being treated once again as an irrelevance?
My dear Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that the point of these inquiries is to delay, defer, obfuscate and report only when the heat has gone out of the issue and people have lost interest in the subject.
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
The Edinburgh Trams inquiry...
Isn't that stalled by everyone in the enquiry waiting for a tram? At a stop that will never be built?
The technical term for that is an Amersham - named after the Metropolitan line station where the rails always rattle but the train never comes.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you. Also a stronger GBP and so less competitive export sector. I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
We aren't on the verge of bankruptcy with a 10% deficit two years after the recession ended.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
[Source: ONS for both]
Curious how that is "worse"?
Isn't inequality in LE going up?
Also - what about immigration of young people? Have you controlled for that?
I haven't controlled for anything, I Googled the data and took the data directly from the ONS website.
I kind of assume the ONS have controlled for things. I'm not going to do their job for them, for a quick discussion on the internet.
I can't spot that 81.77 figure anywhere on the ONS site. Is it an average of a male/female LEs?
Using the latest polls and EMA, if there were a Genral Election TODAY, Electoral Calculus shows a Labour majority of 230, and the LIbDems in third place on 40 seats.
But what is the trend?
The trend since the last GE (ignoring the Truss blip) for the next twelve months is as follows:
This gives Labour majority of 410 and the LibDems in second place.
Well I don't want the Tories to win the next election but that last prediction is fanciful. All it really shows is the failure of such modelling.
Just Electoral Calculus being Electoral Calculus again. Its predictions for the new boundaries don't pass any sort of smell test.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
Using the latest polls and EMA, if there were a Genral Election TODAY, Electoral Calculus shows a Labour majority of 230, and the LIbDems in third place on 40 seats.
But what is the trend?
The trend since the last GE (ignoring the Truss blip) for the next twelve months is as follows:
This gives Labour majority of 410 and the LibDems in second place.
Well I don't want the Tories to win the next election but that last prediction is fanciful. All it really shows is the failure of such modelling.
Just Electoral Calculus being Electoral Calculus again. Its predictions for the new boundaries don't pass any sort of smell test.
If we are going to torture stats like this, can't we just have @MoonRabbit do it?
Using the latest polls and EMA, if there were a Genral Election TODAY, Electoral Calculus shows a Labour majority of 230, and the LIbDems in third place on 40 seats.
But what is the trend?
The trend since the last GE (ignoring the Truss blip) for the next twelve months is as follows:
This gives Labour majority of 410 and the LibDems in second place.
Well I don't want the Tories to win the next election but that last prediction is fanciful. All it really shows is the failure of such modelling.
Just Electoral Calculus being Electoral Calculus again. Its predictions for the new boundaries don't pass any sort of smell test.
Don't be too dismissive, Captain. They provide a useful benchmark but don't pretend to do more than that.
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
We aren't on the verge of bankruptcy with a 10% deficit two years after the recession ended.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
[Source: ONS for both]
Curious how that is "worse"?
You are correct. The picture on life expectancy is not all good though.
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
At those dilutions it will definitely be homeopathic.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The LDs have been hopeless at targeting seats at general elections since 2005. Maybe they'll be better this time; maybe their system / imbued mantras only work with a semi-/popular Labour Party; maybe the seats will just fall organically into their lap anyway. But I don't put much store in LD strategy.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you. Also a stronger GBP and so less competitive export sector. I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you.
Well of course raising interest rates to control inflation results in higher interest rates and fewer jobs, that's the entire point of raising interest rates when the economy overheats. But that's the point of controlling inflation.
If you're opposed to that, why should the Bank have raised interest rates over the past year?
Unless you want to give up on the notion of controlling inflation via interest rates, of course controlling inflation has negative side effects, but so does inflation.
I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
Volatile? In the past two decades the prices have risen, and risen, and risen, and risen, and risen ... pretty much without break for 20 years in a row. In what meaning of the word is that volatile?
Far more volatile is things like oil, or gas, which shoot up or down like a yo-yo and both are quite rightly included in the basket.
Besides, I'm not suggesting that interest rates should solely be tied to house price index, merely that it should be in the basket and weighted appropriately, which would make it a major part of the basket because that's what it is, a major part of people's spending. If a major part of people's spending is going up in price, then simply pretending it isn't happening doesn't make inflation any less real or harmful.
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
Can they not process the tritium and sell it on? Opportunities everywhere!
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
Can they not process the tritium and sell it on? Opportunities everywhere!
It's at rather low concentrations per ton of water to start with.
I sort of welcomed the new goverment in 2010. I was wrong.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt Education Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
BETTER There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
Unemployment halved since 2010, school standards up with more outstanding and less inadequate schools, the EBacc ensuring more traditional subjects studied at GCSE and free schools.
Whole life sentences for child murderers and police murderers, serial killers and terrorists. The lowest earners taken out of income tax, married couples no longer have to pay IHT up to estates of £1 million and top rate income tax down from 50% to 45%.
Free movement ended and replaced by a points system improving wages for the lowest earners. Local Plans and neighbourhood plans mean councils and local people can shape where development will go without a developers free for all.
A government now reducing the deficit and inflation too. Homosexual marriage too came in under the Coalition government
So you accept that Healthcare Life Expectancy Dental Care Justice System Corruption Pot Holes Child Poverty Inflation Growth Government Debt
Social Care Services funded by local authorities Housing for people of working age
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
The best reason not to include house prices, which is that house prices are not, of themselves, usually the determining factor of affordability; mortgage repayments are (so hence you include mortgage payments / rents).
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
On topic, if Labour stopped trying to expel all their Jewish members that don't support Netanyahu as a way of getting back at the ghost of Corbyn, maybe that would help to stem the tide of voters away from them...
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
At those dilutions it will definitely be homeopathic.
I give lots of talks about the science of chillies. I also often talk about the Scoville test (how hot is my chilli?) Its based on a series of dilutions, the more you need to dilute the chilli extract before you cannot taste the 'heat', the hotter the chilli.
Now if homeopathy worked, everytime you diluted the exract, it should get hotter... (Or perhaps you need to shake the solution in a certain way or something...)
My favourite memory was at a talk where I compared Scoville tests to homeopathy. There was a chap who became very interested at a scientist talking about homeopathy, right up to the point where I said "unfortunately homeopathy is utter bollocks...". He stormed off, shouting "But it works!!"
It doesn't folks (at least not by any scientific definition). Of course if your homeopath sits down and discusses your case for an hour and then 'prescribes' some medicine you may find it more effective that three rushed minutes with the locum GP who prescribes some medicine.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
The best reason not to include house prices, which is that house prices are not, of themselves, usually the determining factor of affordability; mortgage repayments are (so hence you include mortgage payments / rents).
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
So why include car prices, rather than car finance prices?
Why include the price of goods and services, rather than credit card finance rates?
Finance shouldn't be part of the basket, the price of the goods and services should be, which should include houses and cars. Then if the bank raises or lowers rates, then that doesn't self-reinforce the data like including mortgage payments going up or down does, it only changes the data if prices actually start going further up or down - which is precisely what inflation is supposed to measure, the cost of prices not the cost of finance.
And if you accept it should be included, which it should, then why should it be down-weighted? Just weight it appropriately, don't fiddle the data.
Using the latest polls and EMA, if there were a Genral Election TODAY, Electoral Calculus shows a Labour majority of 230, and the LIbDems in third place on 40 seats.
But what is the trend?
The trend since the last GE (ignoring the Truss blip) for the next twelve months is as follows:
This gives Labour majority of 410 and the LibDems in second place.
Well I don't want the Tories to win the next election but that last prediction is fanciful. All it really shows is the failure of such modelling.
It's a projection, not a prediction.
FWIW, I think that if Labour did win by 25%, the numbers there would be about right - particularly given that the larger the Lab lead, the greater the pro-Lab / anti-Con tactical voting.
The comparable(ish) historical case of 1931 had the Tories lead Labour by 55-30 (admittedly with NatLib/NatLab to add to the mix), and end up with a 470-52 lead in seats.
But Labour won't win by 25%. Electoral dynamics invariably result in the trailing party making up ground as the GE approaches.
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
Yes a bit. Although my net betting position is still long Cons due to some poor judgement a couple of years ago.
Best for the country is a good Labour majority. Starmer should be given the chance to disappoint (majority PB view) or not (my view). Either way let's not die not knowing.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
The best reason not to include house prices, which is that house prices are not, of themselves, usually the determining factor of affordability; mortgage repayments are (so hence you include mortgage payments / rents).
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
So why include car prices, rather than car finance prices?
Why include the price of goods and services, rather than credit card finance rates?
Finance shouldn't be part of the basket, the price of the goods and services should be, which should include houses and cars. Then if the bank raises or lowers rates, then that doesn't self-reinforce the data like including mortgage payments going up or down does, it only changes the data if prices actually start going further up or down - which is precisely what inflation is supposed to measure, the cost of prices not the cost of finance.
And if you accept it should be included, which it should, then why should it be down-weighted? Just weight it appropriately, don't fiddle the data.
My workings (& Nationwide* & Tyndall) clearly show it wouldn't have made much difference overall since about 2004 though !
It doesn't get much attention but there was SIGNIFICANT asset deflation in the Northern Ireland market for years post 2008.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you. Also a stronger GBP and so less competitive export sector. I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
It was the failed monetary policy that led to the volatility in house prices in the first place.
As for 'fewer jobs' being something to fear, it would have meant lower net migration, therefore lower demand for housing, therefore more availability for young British couples, therefore a higher birth rate. therefore less need for immigration. A vicious circle would have instead been a virtuous circle.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
You want the running cost of housing yourself not the cost of a house. The rental equivalent.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
I’d include the cost of housing in inflation, rather than the cost of houses. The problem with that, is that the cost of housing is positively correlated with interest rates, generating a feedback loop, whereas the cost of houses is negatively correlated with interest rates.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
The best reason not to include house prices, which is that house prices are not, of themselves, usually the determining factor of affordability; mortgage repayments are (so hence you include mortgage payments / rents).
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
So why include car prices, rather than car finance prices?
Why include the price of goods and services, rather than credit card finance rates?
Finance shouldn't be part of the basket, the price of the goods and services should be, which should include houses and cars. Then if the bank raises or lowers rates, then that doesn't self-reinforce the data like including mortgage payments going up or down does, it only changes the data if prices actually start going further up or down - which is precisely what inflation is supposed to measure, the cost of prices not the cost of finance.
And if you accept it should be included, which it should, then why should it be down-weighted? Just weight it appropriately, don't fiddle the data.
My workings clearly show it wouldn't have made much difference overall since about 2004 though !
It doesn't get much attention but there was SIGNIFICANT asset deflation in the Northern Ireland market for years post 2008.
I don't agree, even going off your chart your workings clearly show it would have made a difference.
The red line clearly diverges sooner from the other line, in both 2006 and late 2020, which should have set off alarm bells both times that there's a problem which disregarding a key component of inflation meant it was ignored until the problem became worse.
Alarm bells going off in 2006 when there was a real bubble emerging and overheating might have brought the heat out of the economy sooner and calmed prices rather than waiting until the bubble burst two years later.
Similarly in 2020 there should have been alarm bells going off that inflation was becoming a real problem, instead of ignoring it until it spread to other goods and services.
The differential between the blue and red lines you've drawn is significant in both 2007 and 2021, but the problem was swept under the carpet both times until it became a bigger problem.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
The best reason not to include house prices, which is that house prices are not, of themselves, usually the determining factor of affordability; mortgage repayments are (so hence you include mortgage payments / rents).
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
So why include car prices, rather than car finance prices?
Why include the price of goods and services, rather than credit card finance rates?
Finance shouldn't be part of the basket, the price of the goods and services should be, which should include houses and cars. Then if the bank raises or lowers rates, then that doesn't self-reinforce the data like including mortgage payments going up or down does, it only changes the data if prices actually start going further up or down - which is precisely what inflation is supposed to measure, the cost of prices not the cost of finance.
And if you accept it should be included, which it should, then why should it be down-weighted? Just weight it appropriately, don't fiddle the data.
My workings clearly show it wouldn't have made much difference overall since about 2004 though !
It doesn't get much attention but there was SIGNIFICANT asset deflation in the Northern Ireland market for years post 2008.
I don't agree, even going off your chart your workings clearly show it would have made a difference.
The red line clearly diverges sooner from the other line, in both 2006 and late 2020, which should have set off alarm bells both times that there's a problem which disregarding a key component of inflation meant it was ignored until the problem became worse.
Alarm bells going off in 2006 when there was a real bubble emerging and overheating might have brought the heat out of the economy sooner and calmed prices rather than waiting until the bubble burst two years later.
Similarly in 2020 there should have been alarm bells going off that inflation was becoming a real problem, instead of ignoring it until it spread to other goods and services.
The differential between the blue and red lines you've drawn is significant in both 2007 and 2021, but the problem was swept under the carpet both times until it became a bigger problem.
You never got back to me regarding the 17% fatality rate for pedestrians at 40mph. Mind sending the link across at some point?
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you. Also a stronger GBP and so less competitive export sector. I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you.
Well of course raising interest rates to control inflation results in higher interest rates and fewer jobs, that's the entire point of raising interest rates when the economy overheats. But that's the point of controlling inflation.
If you're opposed to that, why should the Bank have raised interest rates over the past year?
Unless you want to give up on the notion of controlling inflation via interest rates, of course controlling inflation has negative side effects, but so does inflation.
I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
Volatile? In the past two decades the prices have risen, and risen, and risen, and risen, and risen ... pretty much without break for 20 years in a row. In what meaning of the word is that volatile?
Far more volatile is things like oil, or gas, which shoot up or down like a yo-yo and both are quite rightly included in the basket.
Besides, I'm not suggesting that interest rates should solely be tied to house price index, merely that it should be in the basket and weighted appropriately, which would make it a major part of the basket because that's what it is, a major part of people's spending. If a major part of people's spending is going up in price, then simply pretending it isn't happening doesn't make inflation any less real or harmful.
Housing is different though. We bought our house 12 years ago. We will not buy another house to live in for the foreseeable future. What has happened to house prices since 2011 plays no role in my cost of living at all. In that time I have bought two cars, and buy food every week. Other stuff in the basket affects my cost of living far more. At 9% interest rates in 2002 I think the economy would have been in recession, with deflation for goods and services. With nominal wages generally reluctant to fall, that would have implied real wage increases and higher unemployment. Real house prices would still have risen as prices of goods and services declined. Since house prices fall in a recession much more than CPI prices, you would have seen an even more rapid cut in rates to zero in 2008/09, and even more pressure to do QE. Basically, you are making monetary policy much more volatile - much tighter in periods of growth, much looser in a downturn - by including a volatile asset price in the basket.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
I’d include the cost of housing in inflation, rather than the cost of houses. The problem with that, is that the cost of housing is positively correlated with interest rates, generating a feedback loop, whereas the cost of houses is negatively correlated with interest rates.
Mortgages in REAL TERMS have gone up and down like a yo-yo since 1991 but the broad trend is roughly flat. Currently they're high but we're not in 2008 territory just yet.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
You want the running cost of housing yourself not the cost of a house. The rental equivalent.
Why?
You want the cost people are paying, which if you're purchasing is the cost of the house.
And you can't complain about a problem where the cost is positively correlated with interest rates, like it is with mortgages, if you include the actual cost. Indeed the cost should be negatively correlated with interest rates, which is the entire point of raising or lowering interest rates.
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you. Also a stronger GBP and so less competitive export sector. I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
It was the failed monetary policy that led to the volatility in house prices in the first place.
As for 'fewer jobs' being something to fear, it would have meant lower net migration, therefore lower demand for housing, therefore more availability for young British couples, therefore a higher birth rate. therefore less need for immigration. A vicious circle would have instead been a virtuous circle.
Your policy is basically to make the country poorer so we can afford the housing stock we have, rather than expand our housing stock to allow the country to grow. It's thinking like this that explains why we are currently circling the drain.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
The best reason not to include house prices, which is that house prices are not, of themselves, usually the determining factor of affordability; mortgage repayments are (so hence you include mortgage payments / rents).
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
So why include car prices, rather than car finance prices?
Why include the price of goods and services, rather than credit card finance rates?
Finance shouldn't be part of the basket, the price of the goods and services should be, which should include houses and cars. Then if the bank raises or lowers rates, then that doesn't self-reinforce the data like including mortgage payments going up or down does, it only changes the data if prices actually start going further up or down - which is precisely what inflation is supposed to measure, the cost of prices not the cost of finance.
And if you accept it should be included, which it should, then why should it be down-weighted? Just weight it appropriately, don't fiddle the data.
My workings clearly show it wouldn't have made much difference overall since about 2004 though !
It doesn't get much attention but there was SIGNIFICANT asset deflation in the Northern Ireland market for years post 2008.
I don't agree, even going off your chart your workings clearly show it would have made a difference.
The red line clearly diverges sooner from the other line, in both 2006 and late 2020, which should have set off alarm bells both times that there's a problem which disregarding a key component of inflation meant it was ignored until the problem became worse.
Alarm bells going off in 2006 when there was a real bubble emerging and overheating might have brought the heat out of the economy sooner and calmed prices rather than waiting until the bubble burst two years later.
Similarly in 2020 there should have been alarm bells going off that inflation was becoming a real problem, instead of ignoring it until it spread to other goods and services.
The differential between the blue and red lines you've drawn is significant in both 2007 and 2021, but the problem was swept under the carpet both times until it became a bigger problem.
You never got back to me regarding the 17% fatality rate for pedestrians at 40mph. Mind sending the link across at some point?
I gave you a link a couple of weeks ago, which was based on modern UK data.
Can't find that link now but from a quick Google here's one based on modern US data and it puts it at 15.7%
The problem is most claims in this are myths based on either old data [typically dating back to the 1970s] or people quoting what others are quoting in a self-reinforced circle with no actual source data analysis. If you can find any different figures, using modern data and with a source like this has to modern data, then I'd be all ears.
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you. Also a stronger GBP and so less competitive export sector. I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
It was the failed monetary policy that led to the volatility in house prices in the first place.
As for 'fewer jobs' being something to fear, it would have meant lower net migration, therefore lower demand for housing, therefore more availability for young British couples, therefore a higher birth rate. therefore less need for immigration. A vicious circle would have instead been a virtuous circle.
Your policy is basically to make the country poorer so we can afford the housing stock we have, rather than expand our housing stock to allow the country to grow. It's thinking like this that explains why we are currently circling the drain.
We have some of the most expenisice housing stock in the world. If my policy would make us more able to afford it, then I suggest that this would make us richer rather than poorer.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
How would you do it? Simply add the house price to the CPI basket? With what kind of weight? Or would you go down the rental equivalence approach used in the US CPI and our own CPIH measure?
Yes, I would have the house price itself in the CPI basket, just as car prices are in the CPI basket even though cars are often bought on finance. The cost of the good or service, in this case the car or house, should be in CPI, not the cost of the finance or mortgage/car loan.
As for what weight to give it, that should be weighted based on the proportion of expenditure that goes to pay for it typically.
On my back of the envelope calculation that would suggest about a 13% weight on house prices in the CPI, suggesting interest rates in 2002 would have been 9% instead of 4%. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Yes. That kind of thing.
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you. Also a stronger GBP and so less competitive export sector. I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
At higher interest rates you would have lower house prices but also fewer jobs and much higher interest payments so I'm not sure young housebuyers would be thanking you.
Well of course raising interest rates to control inflation results in higher interest rates and fewer jobs, that's the entire point of raising interest rates when the economy overheats. But that's the point of controlling inflation.
If you're opposed to that, why should the Bank have raised interest rates over the past year?
Unless you want to give up on the notion of controlling inflation via interest rates, of course controlling inflation has negative side effects, but so does inflation.
I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
Volatile? In the past two decades the prices have risen, and risen, and risen, and risen, and risen ... pretty much without break for 20 years in a row. In what meaning of the word is that volatile?
Far more volatile is things like oil, or gas, which shoot up or down like a yo-yo and both are quite rightly included in the basket.
Besides, I'm not suggesting that interest rates should solely be tied to house price index, merely that it should be in the basket and weighted appropriately, which would make it a major part of the basket because that's what it is, a major part of people's spending. If a major part of people's spending is going up in price, then simply pretending it isn't happening doesn't make inflation any less real or harmful.
Housing is different though. We bought our house 12 years ago. We will not buy another house to live in for the foreseeable future. What has happened to house prices since 2011 plays no role in my cost of living at all. In that time I have bought two cars, and buy food every week. Other stuff in the basket affects my cost of living far more. At 9% interest rates in 2002 I think the economy would have been in recession, with deflation for goods and services. With nominal wages generally reluctant to fall, that would have implied real wage increases and higher unemployment. Real house prices would still have risen as prices of goods and services declined. Since house prices fall in a recession much more than CPI prices, you would have seen an even more rapid cut in rates to zero in 2008/09, and even more pressure to do QE. Basically, you are making monetary policy much more volatile - much tighter in periods of growth, much looser in a downturn - by including a volatile asset price in the basket.
Great anecdote.
If I go as an anecdote, I bought my house last year and have moved house 4 times in the past decade.
I bought my car 13 years ago. In the past decade I've not bought any others.
Yes not everyone buys a house every year, nor does everyone buy a car every year, but that's the entire point of weightings. Its not based on what you spend in a year, or I spend in a year, its based on averages. Analyse the data and weight accordingly. The fact that house prices don't affect your cost of living is no more relevant to those for whom it does affect their cost of living, than the fact car prices for the past decade haven't affected mine. For those whom it is affecting, it should be measured, at the appropriate weighting.
And house prices are less volatile than prices like gas or electricity or oil so why do you think monetary policy would become more volatile. What it might do is react sooner to the economy overheating, which is precisely what monetary policy should do.
Volatile? In the past two decades the prices have risen, and risen, and risen, and risen, and risen ... pretty much without break for 20 years in a row.
UK wide, houses are the same price in real terms that they were 20 years ago.
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
At those dilutions it will definitely be homeopathic.
I give lots of talks about the science of chillies. I also often talk about the Scoville test (how hot is my chilli?) Its based on a series of dilutions, the more you need to dilute the chilli extract before you cannot taste the 'heat', the hotter the chilli.
Now if homeopathy worked, everytime you diluted the exract, it should get hotter... (Or perhaps you need to shake the solution in a certain way or something...)
My favourite memory was at a talk where I compared Scoville tests to homeopathy. There was a chap who became very interested at a scientist talking about homeopathy, right up to the point where I said "unfortunately homeopathy is utter bollocks...". He stormed off, shouting "But it works!!"
It doesn't folks (at least not by any scientific definition). Of course if your homeopath sits down and discusses your case for an hour and then 'prescribes' some medicine you may find it more effective that three rushed minutes with the locum GP who prescribes some medicine.
Just thinking about the dodgy American vendor of a radium medicine who got done for not having any radium in it. Can't remember how many were done for actually having radium in it, and killing their customers ...
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
At those dilutions it will definitely be homeopathic.
I give lots of talks about the science of chillies. I also often talk about the Scoville test (how hot is my chilli?) Its based on a series of dilutions, the more you need to dilute the chilli extract before you cannot taste the 'heat', the hotter the chilli.
Now if homeopathy worked, everytime you diluted the exract, it should get hotter... (Or perhaps you need to shake the solution in a certain way or something...)
My favourite memory was at a talk where I compared Scoville tests to homeopathy. There was a chap who became very interested at a scientist talking about homeopathy, right up to the point where I said "unfortunately homeopathy is utter bollocks...". He stormed off, shouting "But it works!!"
It doesn't folks (at least not by any scientific definition). Of course if your homeopath sits down and discusses your case for an hour and then 'prescribes' some medicine you may find it more effective that three rushed minutes with the locum GP who prescribes some medicine.
TBF homoeopathy does sort of work - by the placebo effect, as you note, and (especially in the Victorian era, with all its mercury and arsenic and the like in heroic doses in pills) by not causing iatrogenic harm ...
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
The best reason not to include house prices, which is that house prices are not, of themselves, usually the determining factor of affordability; mortgage repayments are (so hence you include mortgage payments / rents).
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
So why include car prices, rather than car finance prices?
Why include the price of goods and services, rather than credit card finance rates?
Finance shouldn't be part of the basket, the price of the goods and services should be, which should include houses and cars. Then if the bank raises or lowers rates, then that doesn't self-reinforce the data like including mortgage payments going up or down does, it only changes the data if prices actually start going further up or down - which is precisely what inflation is supposed to measure, the cost of prices not the cost of finance.
And if you accept it should be included, which it should, then why should it be down-weighted? Just weight it appropriately, don't fiddle the data.
My workings clearly show it wouldn't have made much difference overall since about 2004 though !
It doesn't get much attention but there was SIGNIFICANT asset deflation in the Northern Ireland market for years post 2008.
I don't agree, even going off your chart your workings clearly show it would have made a difference.
The red line clearly diverges sooner from the other line, in both 2006 and late 2020, which should have set off alarm bells both times that there's a problem which disregarding a key component of inflation meant it was ignored until the problem became worse.
Alarm bells going off in 2006 when there was a real bubble emerging and overheating might have brought the heat out of the economy sooner and calmed prices rather than waiting until the bubble burst two years later.
Similarly in 2020 there should have been alarm bells going off that inflation was becoming a real problem, instead of ignoring it until it spread to other goods and services.
The differential between the blue and red lines you've drawn is significant in both 2007 and 2021, but the problem was swept under the carpet both times until it became a bigger problem.
You never got back to me regarding the 17% fatality rate for pedestrians at 40mph. Mind sending the link across at some point?
I gave you a link a couple of weeks ago, which was based on modern UK data.
Can't find that link now but from a quick Google here's one based on modern US data and it puts it at 15.7%
The problem is most claims in this are myths based on either old data [typically dating back to the 1970s] or people quoting what others are quoting in a self-reinforced circle with no actual source data analysis. If you can find any different figures, using modern data and with a source like this has to modern data, then I'd be all ears.
Volatile? In the past two decades the prices have risen, and risen, and risen, and risen, and risen ... pretty much without break for 20 years in a row.
UK wide, houses are the same price in real terms that they were 20 years ago.
No they're not.
According to Nationwide the UK average house price at end of Q2 2003 was £125,382 According to Nationwide the UK average house price at end of Q2 2023 was £261,995
According to the Bank of England £125,382 in 2003 pounds = £218,269.72 in Jun 2023 prices.
So over 20 years what would in real terms have cost £218,270 now costs £261,995, which is a bit over a 20% increase in real terms.
And that's disregarding the fact that the surge in house prices was already underway in Q2 2003 and a fall in prices (and rise in CPI) over the past year has seen a narrowing of these figures, there's still been a massive rise despite that.
Fukushima plant to begin releasing filtered water into the Pacific (filtered out the easily removeable radicative particles, but some remain which cannot be filtered - e.g. tritium) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
At those dilutions it will definitely be homeopathic.
I give lots of talks about the science of chillies. I also often talk about the Scoville test (how hot is my chilli?) Its based on a series of dilutions, the more you need to dilute the chilli extract before you cannot taste the 'heat', the hotter the chilli.
Now if homeopathy worked, everytime you diluted the exract, it should get hotter... (Or perhaps you need to shake the solution in a certain way or something...)
My favourite memory was at a talk where I compared Scoville tests to homeopathy. There was a chap who became very interested at a scientist talking about homeopathy, right up to the point where I said "unfortunately homeopathy is utter bollocks...". He stormed off, shouting "But it works!!"
It doesn't folks (at least not by any scientific definition). Of course if your homeopath sits down and discusses your case for an hour and then 'prescribes' some medicine you may find it more effective that three rushed minutes with the locum GP who prescribes some medicine.
TBF homoeopathy does sort of work - by the placebo effect, as you note, and (especially in the Victorian era, with all its mercury and arsenic and the like in heroic doses in pills) by not causing iatrogenic harm ...
Arsenic is a really interesting one. There is a medication from the era called Fowler's solution, which contains arsenic. There is also some evidence that it was used with some success in leukemia patients (I have an old paper where it is described as the only effective treatment). It's fascinating because for APML (a variant of leukeamia that I am personally aware of) arsenic tri-oxide is the first line treatment in the US and second line in the UK. Its very effective - if you survive the period after onset and before diagnosis, and the induction phase of treatment, you are pretty much guaranteed a cure.
So yes, in a sense, back in the days getting water containing nothing but water may well have been a better bet, but there remains an intriguing possibility that some lucky Victorian with APML was actually cured by Fowlers solution of arsenic.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
Queen Elizabeth was horrified by police conduct at the Battle of Orgreave and described footage of mounted officers charging into picketing miners as “awful”.
Her reaction to the incident during the miners’ strike was disclosed by Julian Haviland, former political editor, of The Times in an interview with Times Radio this summer before his death this month. It will be broadcast this morning, just after 11am.
Haviland, who worked for The Times between 1981 and 1986, also said that Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister at the time, would drink a large scotch or two before her weekly audience with the Queen, saying she was “the only person in the world of whom Margaret Thatcher was frightened”.
In the interview, Haviland said he confirmed the story about the Queen’s horror at the events at Orgreave, but it was dropped as incrimination of the sources was likely.
“It turned out there were only two other people in the room when she had said it,” Haviland said. “She had said it — I got that absolutely confirmed.”
Well it was awful. The policing of the miners strike was horrific, pure class war stuff. HMQ understood that she was Queen of the whole nation, while Thatcher viewed her fellow countrymen as the 'enemy within' and threw all the resources of state violence at them in pursuit of her war on the working class. This, incidentally, is why I have always been a supporter of the Royal family despite being on the left.
I grew in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, even as a kid I was on the side of the government. I just didn't like Arthur Scargill.
Her war on the working class allowed the working class to buy their own homes.
And now there are no affordable homes left, just as she intended.
Thanks to the Labour government, want me to post the chart showing when house prices exploded in the last 50 years?
Because Labour kept inflation down (how's your boy doing with that BTW) so interest rates fell and asset prices increased. Why don't you post a chart showing the amount of social housing available?
Labour didn't keep inflation down, they just pretended that a house you live in is an asset for the purposes of inflation and so isn't a cost.
Include housing in inflation properly, and inflation never went away. Which is why people couldn't afford to live, even before this cost of living crisis extended inflation back to others.
The myth that house prices represents assets needs to be completely binned. There's a reason that there's no CGT on a house you live in - because its a necessary cost not an asset.
Of course it's an asset. If you own, you can sell and rent if you have to - or even move in with someone else.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Its only an asset in the same way as a car is an asset, and cars are quite rightly included in CPI. Because they're a cost of living, just as housing is. People need to have a roof over their head, which makes it an essential cost.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
You want the running cost of housing yourself not the cost of a house. The rental equivalent.
Why?
You want the cost people are paying, which if you're purchasing is the cost of the house.
And you can't complain about a problem where the cost is positively correlated with interest rates, like it is with mortgages, if you include the actual cost. Indeed the cost should be negatively correlated with interest rates, which is the entire point of raising or lowering interest rates.
In a 'cost of living' context the most appropriate amount to include is your ongoing regular overhead for the roof over your head. What you're forking out in rent. If you are renting that is the rent. If you own it's the equivalent, being your mortgage interest servicing cost plus the opportunity cost of your equity, ie the income foregone on having that money tied up in a house rather than on deposit. You need a formula that does something like this, using current prices and yields. You can do it your way if you like - it's not 'wrong' as such - but I'd have to record my dissenting view.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The LDs have been hopeless at targeting seats at general elections since 2005. Maybe they'll be better this time; maybe their system / imbued mantras only work with a semi-/popular Labour Party; maybe the seats will just fall organically into their lap anyway. But I don't put much store in LD strategy.
Volatile? In the past two decades the prices have risen, and risen, and risen, and risen, and risen ... pretty much without break for 20 years in a row.
UK wide, houses are the same price in real terms that they were 20 years ago.
No they're not.
According to Nationwide the UK average house price at end of Q2 2003 was £125,382 According to Nationwide the UK average house price at end of Q2 2023 was £261,995
According to the Bank of England £125,382 in 2003 pounds = £218,269.72 in Jun 2023 prices.
So over 20 years what would in real terms have cost £218,270 now costs £261,995, which is a bit over a 20% increase in real terms.
And that's disregarding the fact that the surge in house prices was already underway in Q2 2003 and a fall in prices (and rise in CPI) over the past year has seen a narrowing of these figures, there's still been a massive rise despite that.
20% in real terms is in no way 'massive'.
Yes it would be great to see house prices stop rising but your exaggerations do nothing to further the debate.
Comments
Rent is consumption for the consumer when they pay rent.
Purchasing is consumption for the consumer when they purchase.
So the price should be consumption however the consumer chooses to pay, whether it be purchase, or rent, and should be in CPI either way.
The bank [if they're a landlord] since they're not living in it aren't consuming it, but their tenant is though. So its an asset for the bank, as they're owning it, but consumption for the tenant as they're letting it.
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1693719945580785920
[*] According to some dude on Twitter, I know nothing
One is that the sweet spot (LibLab works but SNP can go swivel) is awfully small to hit. Lots of potential to go wrong.
The other is the LibDems are liable to go a bit NIMBY. If you think the big problem needing solving is Getting More Everything Built, a decent Labour majority is the last best hope of that.
I don't say that with enthusiasm, Starmer is set to win because all the alternatives are even worse.
UK housing in real terms is now very slightly above mid 2004 !
Adjusted for Real terms (Nationwide / CPIH)
In the same period house prices in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and Wales have gone up by around 45% and in Scotland by 30%.
Not exactly what I would call insane.
Better or worse since 06/05/2010.
WORSE
Healthcare
Life Expectancy
Dental Care
Justice System
Corruption
Pot Holes
Child Poverty
Inflation
Growth
Government Debt
Education
Social Care
Services funded by local authorities
Housing for people of working age
BETTER
There must be something
What do you think has got better or worse since 2010?
Nonetheless I still think Labourt has a steady lead in the high teens, and I'm not worried about the marginal tightening.
For almost all of the 1980s and 1990s Northern house price to earning ratios were at or below 3x apart from a brief peak 1990-1993 where they surged to around 3.5x and never even reached 4x before crashing back down to 3x. So given that, what would you call a house price to income ratio of 6.2x today other than insane?
We should aim to get house price to income ratios back down to 3x.
The BoE helpfully has a record of interest rates going back to 1694, Nationwide does the House prices and the Gov't provides CPIH. But I can't find a reliable wage series anywhere.
In fact the LD voter needs the Tories to win some seats Labour could win, while itself getting all the seats off the Tories it can. This is not easy to fix or communicate.
However NOM remains about a 50% chance IMHO.
House prices themselves should be directly in the basket, just as car prices and other prices are.
I’m delighted to announce that we're opening 15 new free schools, including in parts of England where education outcomes are weakest
These free schools will build on the incredible reforms we've made which have resulted in 88% of schools now being rated good or outstanding
https://twitter.com/GillianKeegan/status/1693865835910086979?s=20
It's fantastic to be able to open three Eton Star schools in Dudley, Teesside and Oldham
This landmark collaboration between @Eton_College and @StarAcademies
will spread the highest standards of education across the North East, North West and West Midlands.
https://twitter.com/GillianKeegan/status/1693865849046680018?s=20
Two new University Technical Colleges have also been approved for Doncaster and Southampton
Collaborating with businesses, these colleges will support young people build the skills they need for their future careers, including in health sciences and marine engineering'
https://twitter.com/GillianKeegan/status/1693865855581381029?s=20
It is just possible that it may be different with Letby, because it is such an egregious case, but I wouldn't bank on it. It clearly is not going to be the case with Malkinson, as evidenced by the dismissive attitude towards him.
Will things be different under a different Government? Maybe, maybe not. Worth a try perhaps, but again I wouldn't bank on it.
https://x.com/secretsqrl123/status/1693635540938039356
to anyone thinking that the US is not slow walking aid to ukraine.....
biden didnt use all the aid money last year ... 2+ billion was returned....
stated 12 F16s would cost 1.5 billion... a lie
blocked the transfer of F-16s from other countries for a year
100s of uparmored HMMWVs still being scrapped
0 tanks delivered to ukraine (still being held in germany)
1000+ M1117s that were pledged last year still on hold
400+ avengers in storage in PA about to be scrapped
400+ M198 155mm cannons rusting in CA...
3 million rounds of cluster munitions we cant use (but they can) in storage.. only a few sent.
M26 rockets we can no longer use... but they can.. sitting in storage
M57 rockets about to be scrapped (being replaced) in storage
none of the transfers would cost anything but transport fees that europe would gladly pay for...
in MOST issues sending stuff to ukraine would SAVE the us disposal fees that are expensive....
biden has stated that ukraine has everything they have ask for.... that is a flat out lie.
the republicans issue with this is that if we are funding a war or backing them... let them win or dont do it... they need everything we can send to them... and NO fixed wing aircraft, 0 tanks in ukraine, and blocking ammo is NOT giving them the things they need to win..
trump is a idiot, and now with the "ukraine has been given everything they have ask for " lie makes biden a liar... our leaders on both sides have let ukraine down, and the world sees it. do we really want a anti american europe? if ukraine falls or bleeds to death someone will ask who allowed it.. and having fields full of weapons in the US going to scrap will provide the answer. if biden wants a entire continent to distrust us, he is doing a good job of making that happen.
Source https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/2008#:~:text=The pound had an average,National Statistics composite price index.
The one saving grace (or mistake by those commissioning the enquiry) is that the review is to report before the end of October - which means that a whitewash can be rapidly challenged.
https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/5/2023/08/Terms-of-Reference-for-Andrew-Malkinson-Review-21082023.pdf
Er ... they finished Kings Cross station refurbishment? Albeit begun before 2010.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. Right now I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. If they are outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
If you sought Malkinson's opinion, given what I have seen of him on TV, he would seek unreasonable and absurd criteria for the enquiry.
Such as promptly finding out the truth, naming the bad actors and recommending substantial and effective reform.
Something that is worth looking at is the institutional effort that one part of the system gives to protect another.
The story of the Hillsborough enquiries and the government interaction with them is full of Ministers being misled or flat out lied to, by permanent officials, to prevent an enquiry that would show the police in a bad light.
And I thought I'd check the first claim on your list that is measurable, "life expectancy".
Life expectancy 2010: 79.0 years
Life expectancy 2023: 81.77 years
[Source: ONS for both]
Curious how that is "worse"?
Of course as you say that's just a back of the envelope calculation and the reality is that if interest rates were so high then prices would have fallen/not risen as much (which is precisely the point of raising interest rates) so inflation would have been lower than that ultimately.
But if real inflation is that high, and it has been which is why young people have been impoverished by the cost of housing, then interest rates should be high to bring inflation down. That is the point.
Also - what about immigration of young people? Have you controlled for that?
Hopefully by then, the senior officials will have all moved to other, better paying jobs. And/Or retired to a bit of consulting and board membership - in the paediatric safeguarding area, probably.
So it would serve no purpose to be "vindictive" and prosecute people for committing crimes in covering up what was happening.
The election will provide a handy cover to lose some files, new government busy, important matters etc.
With a bit of luck we might not even need an equity to hide the issue - it will just be left to rot, with the occasional clip on the news from the protest group for the families.
I kind of assume the ONS have controlled for things. I'm not going to do their job for them, for a quick discussion on the internet.
The reason there's no CGT on principal properties is politics, not some law of nature - never mind a law of law. There's nothing special about 'necessary costs'; those are just definitions dreamt up by politicians and lawyers. Now, there might be good reasons for both the definition and the rule but it doesn't fundamentally affect the nature of what is, or isn't, an asset.
Whole life sentences for child murderers and police murderers, serial killers and terrorists. The lowest earners taken out of income tax, married couples no longer have to pay IHT up to estates of £1 million and top rate income tax down from 50% to 45%.
Free movement ended and replaced by a points system improving wages for the lowest earners. Local Plans and neighbourhood plans mean councils and local people can shape where development will go without a developers free for all.
A government now reducing the deficit and inflation too. Homosexual marriage too came in under the Coalition government
Unfortunately a non-partisan analysis (to the extent that is possible) indicates a Labour overall majority and most punters agree as can be seen on Betfair. I don't think the majority will be as great as my earlier wind-up post indicated! But I would take 100/1 on the Labour majority being greater than 100.
I can't wait for the seats markets to open.
Blue line is CPIH
Red line is house prices.
Both lines are rebased to match in July 2004.
Other inflation measures and house price series are available. Like I say I can't find a wage series though.
They would have been much better starting at 2019 as a baseline.
There's no good reason why house prices shouldn't be included directly within the basket of goods for inflation, and if they were then inflation would have been measured much higher than it has been for the past two decades, meaning interest rates would have been higher, meaning [house] prices would have risen less - which is the entire point of measuring inflation in the first place: to control price rises.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66578158
I'm thinking there's a big business opportunity here for a homeopathic remedy maker to bottle Pacific sea water and sell it as a radiation sickness cure
BBC Article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58893328
Life expectancy falling in parts of England before pandemic - study
There should be no parts of the UK with falling life expectancy.
Well of course raising interest rates to control inflation results in higher interest rates and fewer jobs, that's the entire point of raising interest rates when the economy overheats. But that's the point of controlling inflation.
If you're opposed to that, why should the Bank have raised interest rates over the past year?
Unless you want to give up on the notion of controlling inflation via interest rates, of course controlling inflation has negative side effects, but so does inflation.
I don't think it would be wise to tie interest rates to a volatile asset price, personally, I think it would make for a much more volatile economy.
Volatile? In the past two decades the prices have risen, and risen, and risen, and risen, and risen ... pretty much without break for 20 years in a row. In what meaning of the word is that volatile?
Far more volatile is things like oil, or gas, which shoot up or down like a yo-yo and both are quite rightly included in the basket.
Besides, I'm not suggesting that interest rates should solely be tied to house price index, merely that it should be in the basket and weighted appropriately, which would make it a major part of the basket because that's what it is, a major part of people's spending. If a major part of people's spending is going up in price, then simply pretending it isn't happening doesn't make inflation any less real or harmful.
Life Expectancy
Dental Care
Justice System
Corruption
Pot Holes
Child Poverty
Inflation
Growth
Government Debt
Social Care
Services funded by local authorities
Housing for people of working age
are all worse.
Sewage into the sea / rivers is also worse.
I'm not entirely sold on the idea. With housing so unaffordable, and inheritances playing a larger role in the flow of money - particularly in relation to the housing market itself - there is a case for including them, with an appropriately down-weighted share of the index.
Now if homeopathy worked, everytime you diluted the exract, it should get hotter... (Or perhaps you need to shake the solution in a certain way or something...)
My favourite memory was at a talk where I compared Scoville tests to homeopathy. There was a chap who became very interested at a scientist talking about homeopathy, right up to the point where I said "unfortunately homeopathy is utter bollocks...". He stormed off, shouting "But it works!!"
It doesn't folks (at least not by any scientific definition). Of course if your homeopath sits down and discusses your case for an hour and then 'prescribes' some medicine you may find it more effective that three rushed minutes with the locum GP who prescribes some medicine.
Why include the price of goods and services, rather than credit card finance rates?
Finance shouldn't be part of the basket, the price of the goods and services should be, which should include houses and cars. Then if the bank raises or lowers rates, then that doesn't self-reinforce the data like including mortgage payments going up or down does, it only changes the data if prices actually start going further up or down - which is precisely what inflation is supposed to measure, the cost of prices not the cost of finance.
And if you accept it should be included, which it should, then why should it be down-weighted? Just weight it appropriately, don't fiddle the data.
FWIW, I think that if Labour did win by 25%, the numbers there would be about right - particularly given that the larger the Lab lead, the greater the pro-Lab / anti-Con tactical voting.
The comparable(ish) historical case of 1931 had the Tories lead Labour by 55-30 (admittedly with NatLib/NatLab to add to the mix), and end up with a 470-52 lead in seats.
But Labour won't win by 25%. Electoral dynamics invariably result in the trailing party making up ground as the GE approaches.
Best for the country is a good Labour majority. Starmer should be given the chance to disappoint (majority PB view) or not (my view). Either way let's not die not knowing.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
It doesn't get much attention but there was SIGNIFICANT asset deflation in the Northern Ireland market for years post 2008.
https://www.nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk/resources/f/uk-data-series
Year / Real figure / Adjusted for inflation
2003 Q2 £125,382 £259,549
2023 Q2 £261,995 £261,995
If you want to sort this properly you'll need to invent a time machine back to Blair's time in office.
As for 'fewer jobs' being something to fear, it would have meant lower net migration, therefore lower demand for housing, therefore more availability for young British couples, therefore a higher birth rate. therefore less need for immigration. A vicious circle would have instead been a virtuous circle.
The red line clearly diverges sooner from the other line, in both 2006 and late 2020, which should have set off alarm bells both times that there's a problem which disregarding a key component of inflation meant it was ignored until the problem became worse.
Alarm bells going off in 2006 when there was a real bubble emerging and overheating might have brought the heat out of the economy sooner and calmed prices rather than waiting until the bubble burst two years later.
Similarly in 2020 there should have been alarm bells going off that inflation was becoming a real problem, instead of ignoring it until it spread to other goods and services.
The differential between the blue and red lines you've drawn is significant in both 2007 and 2021, but the problem was swept under the carpet both times until it became a bigger problem.
At 9% interest rates in 2002 I think the economy would have been in recession, with deflation for goods and services. With nominal wages generally reluctant to fall, that would have implied real wage increases and higher unemployment. Real house prices would still have risen as prices of goods and services declined.
Since house prices fall in a recession much more than CPI prices, you would have seen an even more rapid cut in rates to zero in 2008/09, and even more pressure to do QE. Basically, you are making monetary policy much more volatile - much tighter in periods of growth, much looser in a downturn - by including a volatile asset price in the basket.
You want the cost people are paying, which if you're purchasing is the cost of the house.
And you can't complain about a problem where the cost is positively correlated with interest rates, like it is with mortgages, if you include the actual cost. Indeed the cost should be negatively correlated with interest rates, which is the entire point of raising or lowering interest rates.
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=P5kJ_FwW9C8
Can't find that link now but from a quick Google here's one based on modern US data and it puts it at 15.7%
https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/auto/analysis/pedestrian-chance-of-survival/#:~:text=MoneyGeek's analysis found a direct,the mortality rate to 75.3%.
The problem is most claims in this are myths based on either old data [typically dating back to the 1970s] or people quoting what others are quoting in a self-reinforced circle with no actual source data analysis. If you can find any different figures, using modern data and with a source like this has to modern data, then I'd be all ears.
Many in the West Country.
If I go as an anecdote, I bought my house last year and have moved house 4 times in the past decade.
I bought my car 13 years ago. In the past decade I've not bought any others.
Yes not everyone buys a house every year, nor does everyone buy a car every year, but that's the entire point of weightings. Its not based on what you spend in a year, or I spend in a year, its based on averages. Analyse the data and weight accordingly. The fact that house prices don't affect your cost of living is no more relevant to those for whom it does affect their cost of living, than the fact car prices for the past decade haven't affected mine. For those whom it is affecting, it should be measured, at the appropriate weighting.
And house prices are less volatile than prices like gas or electricity or oil so why do you think monetary policy would become more volatile. What it might do is react sooner to the economy overheating, which is precisely what monetary policy should do.
According to Nationwide the UK average house price at end of Q2 2003 was £125,382
According to Nationwide the UK average house price at end of Q2 2023 was £261,995
According to the Bank of England £125,382 in 2003 pounds = £218,269.72 in Jun 2023 prices.
So over 20 years what would in real terms have cost £218,270 now costs £261,995, which is a bit over a 20% increase in real terms.
And that's disregarding the fact that the surge in house prices was already underway in Q2 2003 and a fall in prices (and rise in CPI) over the past year has seen a narrowing of these figures, there's still been a massive rise despite that.
So yes, in a sense, back in the days getting water containing nothing but water may well have been a better bet, but there remains an intriguing possibility that some lucky Victorian with APML was actually cured by Fowlers solution of arsenic.
How safe are you feeling in your Epping redoubt?
I will shorten my arms and deepen my pockets.
Yes it would be great to see house prices stop rising but your exaggerations do nothing to further the debate.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase