Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.
In real life, however, negotiations (call them "discussions" if you prefer) happen anyway, and are in progress right now. One cannot conclude trade agreements while still in the Customs Union, but a ban on discussion of what will potentially be agreed is not envisaged, not enforceable and not observed.
Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.
Exactly - an option which has explicitly been ruled out by the EU27:
In a direct riposte to UK ministers and business leaders pushing for early guarantees about a transition, Mr Barnier stressed such transitional measures would be left to the final stages of discussions in 2018, once the framework for a future relationship was agreed.
Actually, on this particular point they are being sensible. We need to agree where we're going, and then work out transition arrangements to get there. They are certainly not going to agree to some open-ended 'cake and eat it' transition deal.
Yes, Barnier has ruled out a bespoke transition deal. That's kind of the point.
No he hasn't. He's ruled out agreeing a deal at this stage, he hasn't ruled out anything except "breaking the integrity of the Single Market" for the final stages of negotiations.
Behind a paywall but from what is freely available there's nothing ruling out a bespoke transition deal. Instead there is a threat that if we implement certain policies then a bespoke deal will be impossible. If we implement those policies then staying in the Single Market will be impossible too. The issue they have is with the immigration policies not with the idea of a bespoke deal.
Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).
Yes but Corbyn backed leaving the single market and ending free movement in June
It's not my impression that voters closely follow every utterance by Corbyn, much though I might wish that to be the case. The whole issue was only mentioned once on the doorstep in my patch, as far as I can remember.
As he had neutralised the issue by largely copying the government's Brexit line so issues like the dementia tax took its place, if next time there is a clear dividing line between the parties on the single market and free movement that will not be the case
The gap in pidgin-language news service was inevitably going to get filled. From a British perspective there are good reasons wanting it filled by the BBC. As pidgin diverges from British English (and it really is a distinct language, or group of distinct languages - no point looking down our noses at it just because its historical relationship with English leaves it looking like "broken English") and as literacy continues to spread, perhaps the demand for it will continue to grow. Or perhaps wider education means more people in West Africa, not just the elites, will use English/French for media consumption. Both seem plausible to me.
Two aspects I actually find more problematic are that a British broadcaster is having such a transformative effect on a West African language group (clearly the BBC have been researching the way pidgin is currently written, often in informal contexts, but whatever standardisation they pick is likely to carry a lot of weight) and the fact that any such standardisation may be harmful for the diversity of pidgin/creole (it's not a single language, more a group - mind you, I'm the kind of chap who's very disappointed by the loss of English dialects within the UK and thinks that the French vergonha was awful).
Point of comparison: Norwegian was until fairly recently a purely spoken dialect, everyone there understood Danish, anyone literate could read Danish, what was wrong with the Norwegians just going along with the existing body of Danish literature? Even Ibsen wrote in Danish, not Norwegian. Today's Norwegians are still capable of reading Danish. But they don't buy Danish newspapers.
The change was part of the Independence movement leading up to the 1905 Independence from Sweden. There was concern that the move for statehood was hindered by the lack of an official Norwegian language. Many Norwegians spoke or read Bokmal which is 'book language' Norwegian but this was a mix of old Norse, Danish and some Swedish. SO a new language was devised called 'Neu Norsk'. Both languages are spoken today in different parts of Norway with Oslo and Sandnes being strongholds of Neu Norsk whilst much of the rest of the country speaks Bokmal.
Edit. I have no idea which version I speak as it is a kind of pidgin of both.
Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.
Exactly - an option which has explicitly been ruled out by the EU27:
In a direct riposte to UK ministers and business leaders pushing for early guarantees about a transition, Mr Barnier stressed such transitional measures would be left to the final stages of discussions in 2018, once the framework for a future relationship was agreed.
Actually, on this particular point they are being sensible. We need to agree where we're going, and then work out transition arrangements to get there. They are certainly not going to agree to some open-ended 'cake and eat it' transition deal.
Yes, Barnier has ruled out a bespoke transition deal. That's kind of the point.
No, he and other EU politicans have ruled out the possibility of a transition deal before we have agreed where we are transitioning to and the timetable. In other words, they have explicitly ruled out Labour's position - and that's without even looking at the nature of the cake eating-and-having which Starmer seems to think we can simply award ourselves.
And Labour's position is that we are not going to get to that point before 29th March 2019, so we need more time; and that means staying inside the Single Market and Customs Union. The UK has never said to the EU: "We are going to need more time." In fact, David Davis has been very clear that we do not need more time to get a deal done. Labour's policy is predicated on the notion that Davis is wrong - which seems pretty reasonable given what else he has been wrong about.
Behind a paywall but from what is freely available there's nothing ruling out a bespoke transition deal. Instead there is a threat that if we implement certain policies then a bespoke deal will be impossible. If we implement those policies then staying in the Single Market will be impossible too. The issue they have is with the immigration policies not with the idea of a bespoke deal.
I think Southam is right to the extent that Barnier and the Commission generally think that there isn't enough time to negoiate a bespoke transition deal.
And Labour's position is that we are not going to get to that point before 29th March 2019, so we need more time; and that means staying inside the Single Market and Customs Union. The UK has never said to the EU: "We are going to need more time." In fact, David Davis has been very clear that we do not need more time to get a deal done. Labour's policy is predicated on the notion that Davis is wrong - which seems pretty reasonable given what else he has been wrong about.
I don't think that is their position, but, if it were, then there is a perfectly clear mechanism for asking for more time, contained in Article 50. If Starmer thinks we should use that mechanism, he should say so. Good luck with that, both in terms of the EU's response and the political blowback.
Behind a paywall but from what is freely available there's nothing ruling out a bespoke transition deal. Instead there is a threat that if we implement certain policies then a bespoke deal will be impossible. If we implement those policies then staying in the Single Market will be impossible too. The issue they have is with the immigration policies not with the idea of a bespoke deal.
I think Southam is right to the extent that Barnier and the Commission generally think that there isn't enough time to negoiate a bespoke transition deal.
It seems pretty clear they do not believe there is time to negotiate any kind of meaningful deal. We will disagree as to whose fault that is, of course, but on the very basic point they are almost certainly correct. If that is the case, what happens?
Behind a paywall but from what is freely available there's nothing ruling out a bespoke transition deal. Instead there is a threat that if we implement certain policies then a bespoke deal will be impossible. If we implement those policies then staying in the Single Market will be impossible too. The issue they have is with the immigration policies not with the idea of a bespoke deal.
I think Southam is right to the extent that Barnier and the Commission generally think that there isn't enough time to negoiate a bespoke transition deal.
It seems pretty clear they do not believe there is time to negotiate any kind of meaningful deal. We will disagree as to whose fault that is, of course, but on the very basic point they are almost certainly correct. If that is the case, what happens?
A mess. 'Don't invest in the UK economy in case that happens' would be my advice.
And Labour's position is that we are not going to get to that point before 29th March 2019, so we need more time; and that means staying inside the Single Market and Customs Union. The UK has never said to the EU: "We are going to need more time." In fact, David Davis has been very clear that we do not need more time to get a deal done. Labour's policy is predicated on the notion that Davis is wrong - which seems pretty reasonable given what else he has been wrong about.
I don't think that is their position, but, if it were, then there is a perfectly clear mechanism for asking for more time, contained in Article 50. If Starmer thinks we should use that mechanism, he should say so. Good luck with that, both in terms of the EU's response and the political blowback.
No, invoking the delay mechanism under Article 50 delays the UK's departure from the European Union. Starmer is not suggesting that.
We're going to crash out without any deal aren't we?
I can't see the EU compromising in the ways needed for it to happen.
I think that we'll probably come to a minimal deal with them, sufficient to avoid complete chaos such as flights being grounded. But even that could be kyboshed by their ludicrous demands for money.
Behind a paywall but from what is freely available there's nothing ruling out a bespoke transition deal. Instead there is a threat that if we implement certain policies then a bespoke deal will be impossible. If we implement those policies then staying in the Single Market will be impossible too. The issue they have is with the immigration policies not with the idea of a bespoke deal.
I think Southam is right to the extent that Barnier and the Commission generally think that there isn't enough time to negoiate a bespoke transition deal.
It seems pretty clear they do not believe there is time to negotiate any kind of meaningful deal. We will disagree as to whose fault that is, of course, but on the very basic point they are almost certainly correct. If that is the case, what happens?
A mess. 'Don't invest in the UK economy in case that happens' would be my advice.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
"Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online"
And as a monoglot langage by absolutely nobody, at a guess. Knock out the people who know English or French (both already offered by the World Service), and you could probably fit what's left into a Theresa May General election campaign rally.
More to the point it's an oral dialect, so anyone with literacy skills would already be reading and writing in English or French, and able to access an infinite amount of content rather than just a subsection of the BBC.
Worth bearing in mind that BBC Pidgin isn't just the website, but broadcast too. But even so ...
Dunno. Pidgin and creole are not purely oral, and some forms have now developed quite a strong base of written literature and a codified grammar. People do read and write in pidgin/creole online as their preferred language. Obviously there is considerable penetration of English and French among the educated elites, but pidgin/creole may be far more widespread than either - not as monoglots, but few people in that region are monoglots. E.g. in Sierra Leone only 10% use krio as their home language, but pretty much the entire rest of the country speaks and uses krio as a supplement to their local tribal language. It is krio, not English, that is used as a lingua franca, and in much of the country English is not widely understood. Having said that, I'm not an expert, but the BBC Pidgin service looks too anglicised to be easily comprehensible to a krio-speaker who does not understand standard English anyway.
There is a question of preference, not just ability, though. A lot of people see English/French as essentially "foreign" languages. If people write their facebook posts and watch TV in their preferred language, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they might welcome news coverage in that language too (for example, sharing a story in their social media feed in the same language that the rest of their feed is written).
Until today, I most associated Pidgin with Papua New Guinea.
Behind a paywall but from what is freely available there's nothing ruling out a bespoke transition deal. Instead there is a threat that if we implement certain policies then a bespoke deal will be impossible. If we implement those policies then staying in the Single Market will be impossible too. The issue they have is with the immigration policies not with the idea of a bespoke deal.
I think Southam is right to the extent that Barnier and the Commission generally think that there isn't enough time to negoiate a bespoke transition deal.
It seems pretty clear they do not believe there is time to negotiate any kind of meaningful deal. We will disagree as to whose fault that is, of course, but on the very basic point they are almost certainly correct. If that is the case, what happens?
A mess. 'Don't invest in the UK economy in case that happens' would be my advice.
Or reconfigure the process and give ourselves more time by saying to the EU we wish to stay inside the single market and customs union while we continue negotiations post-Brexit. You and I agree that while the UK will suffer most from the cliff-edge, the EU27 will suffer too, so why would they refuse a suggestion that takes that possibility away? Politically, rejecting such a solution would make it much harder for them to blame the UK for any domestic cliff edge woes.
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out. (2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it. (3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed. (4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.
Why?
I understand why we can't implement deals but why can't we talk and start working out deals?
No idea about the rules, but how could anyone negotiate with us when they didn't know what our trading and customs relationship with the EU would be? It would be madness for both sides.
We're going to crash out without any deal aren't we?
I can't see the EU compromising in the ways needed for it to happen.
I think that we'll probably come to a minimal deal with them, sufficient to avoid complete chaos such as flights being grounded. But even that could be kyboshed by their ludicrous demands for money.
Yep. At least we'll finally be disentangling ourselves from the idiots.
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out. (2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it. (3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed. (4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.
Why?
I understand why we can't implement deals but why can't we talk and start working out deals?
No idea about the rules, but how could anyone negotiate with us when they didn't know what our trading and customs relationship with the EU would be? It would be madness for both sides.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
And electoral wipe-out. A government presiding over crashing house prices is a government that is heading for the political wilderness - especially if it is a Tory one.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
And Brexit is the perfect excuse to do it.... although I personally suspect prices will rebase anyway as the current situation is due to insanely low interest rates that don't bear reality to what the market actually needs.
As interest rates rise and as BTL mortgages are no longer offered like candy I suspect prices will fall regardless of what the government wants...
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
And electoral wipe-out. A government presiding over crashing house prices is a government that is heading for the political wilderness - especially if it is a Tory one.
Yep. Sadly, everything stems from houseprices. We aren't a share-owning democracy (which has its risks), but a property-owning one. Consumer spending, services, you name it.
Neil's second sentence there looks rather important. Luckily, the forecast is for accelerated growth in our biggest export market during the second half of this year. If that is the case, it should keep the wolf from door for a little longer.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
And electoral wipe-out. A government presiding over crashing house prices is a government that is heading for the political wilderness - especially if it is a Tory one.
Sadly this is a problem that should have been resolved 10 years ago and current interest rates are totally to blame.
Interestingly prices around my neck of the woods are the same as in 2004 and still feel over priced...
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
Agree. But it's necessary.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Not if their parents have an expensive house they will inherit and they are on an average salary
Most people share the inheritance of their house while having to buy an entire one themselves. So on average they would gain.
Also having the only way of getting a house is inheriting it when you are 50 odd is not the best way to run a country.
If your parents have a roughly £1 million house your sibling and you inherit that is £500 000 inheritance before inheritance tax thanks to Osborne's inheritance tax cut if your parents are in the majority who avoid residential care.
Parents can also use equity release etc to help their children get a deposit early on and lower house prices only helps get on the ladder if banks lend at the same ratio
Behind a paywall but from what is freely available there's nothing ruling out a bespoke transition deal. Instead there is a threat that if we implement certain policies then a bespoke deal will be impossible. If we implement those policies then staying in the Single Market will be impossible too. The issue they have is with the immigration policies not with the idea of a bespoke deal.
I think Southam is right to the extent that Barnier and the Commission generally think that there isn't enough time to negoiate a bespoke transition deal.
It seems pretty clear they do not believe there is time to negotiate any kind of meaningful deal. We will disagree as to whose fault that is, of course, but on the very basic point they are almost certainly correct. If that is the case, what happens?
A mess. 'Don't invest in the UK economy in case that happens' would be my advice.
Or reconfigure the process and give ourselves more time by saying to the EU we wish to stay inside the single market and customs union while we continue negotiations post-Brexit. You and I agree that while the UK will suffer most from the cliff-edge, the EU27 will suffer too, so why would they refuse a suggestion that takes that possibility away? Politically, rejecting such a solution would make it much harder for them to blame the UK for any domestic cliff edge woes.
This is obviously the most sensible option but May's government would be doomed if it is forced into this position.
We're going to crash out without any deal aren't we?
I can't see the EU compromising in the ways needed for it to happen.
Agreeing a transition won't be too difficult - there are plenty of off-the-shelf models that wouldn't need much tweaking. The problem is the final settlement, for which there is a practical deadline of the next GE, and where an inability for both sides to sufficiently compromise might well produce a breakdown in talks and a Crash Brexit.
Incidentally, if the Trinity Mirror bid for the Express group succeeds, I wonder what they'll do with the papers?
1. Close them down and merge with the Mirror? 2. Maintain them with their Tory/UKIP line, to reassure current readers? 3. Migrate to a more non-aligned or even pro-Labourposition, to attract new readers?
I don't think most tabloid readers buy papers primarily for their political line, but the core Express readers may do. I'd think they'll try 2 and then 1.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
A house-price crash would reduce, not increase, the supply of new houses, and it would also completely freeze up the market for existing houses. If it were accompanied by an increase in interest rates, it wouldn't do much if anything for affordability for the young. Mortgages would become near-impossible to get. Young families would be trapped in negative equity, and those who lost their jobs would be bankrupted.
You really, really don't want to go there, as anyone who remembers the last time it happened will confirm.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Not if their parents have an expensive house they will inherit and they are on an average salary
Most people share the inheritance of their house while having to buy an entire one themselves. So on average they would gain.
Also having the only way of getting a house is inheriting it when you are 50 odd is not the best way to run a country.
If your parents have a roughly £1 million house your sibling and you inherit that is £500 000 inheritance before inheritance tax thanks to Osborne's inheritance tax cut if your parents are in the majority who avoid residential care.
Parents can also use equity release etc to help their children get a deposit early on and lower house prices only helps get on the ladder if banks lend at the same ratio
I worry that equity release could be the next PPI.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Not if their parents have an expensive house they will inherit and they are on an average salary
Most people share the inheritance of their house while having to buy an entire one themselves. So on average they would gain.
Also having the only way of getting a house is inheriting it when you are 50 odd is not the best way to run a country.
If your parents have a roughly £1 million house your sibling and you inherit that is £500 000 inheritance before inheritance tax thanks to Osborne's inheritance tax cut if your parents are in the majority who avoid residential care.
Parents can also use equity release etc to help their children get a deposit early on and lower house prices only helps get on the ladder if banks lend at the same ratio
If the children want the same quality of housing as their parents in your scenario they would still have to come up with £500k. If house prices halved then they would inherit £250k each and it would only cost the £250k to buy the same type of house as it would only cost £500k.
A lot of people won't inherit anything from their parents anyway and the idea that high house prices are ok because you might inherit some % towards a house is wrong in my opinion.
Incidentally, if the Trinity Mirror bid for the Express group succeeds, I wonder what they'll do with the papers?
1. Close them down and merge with the Mirror? 2. Maintain them with their Tory/UKIP line, to reassure current readers? 3. Migrate to a more non-aligned or even pro-Labourposition, to attract new readers?
I don't think most tabloid readers buy papers primarily for their political line, but the core Express readers may do. I'd think they'll try 2 and then 1.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
A house-price crash would reduce, not increase, the supply of new houses, and it would also completely freeze up the market for existing houses. If it were accompanied by an increase in interest rates, it wouldn't do much if anything for affordability for the young. Mortgages would become near-impossible to get. Young families would be trapped in negative equity, and those who lost their jobs would be bankrupted.
You really, really don't want to go there, as anyone who remembers the last time it happened will confirm.
They'd be a few very bad years, but in the long run it would be better for the young. In the same way the 90s were good for the young after the house price crash in 1989.
The housing supply went up in the 90s after the late 80s crash.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
A house-price crash would reduce, not increase, the supply of new houses, and it would also completely freeze up the market for existing houses. If it were accompanied by an increase in interest rates, it wouldn't do much if anything for affordability for the young. Mortgages would become near-impossible to get. Young families would be trapped in negative equity, and those who lost their jobs would be bankrupted.
You really, really don't want to go there, as anyone who remembers the last time it happened will confirm.
As some one who was there at the time the things I remember:-
It trapped those people who had bought just before the crash who had to wait a long time for prices to rise again Those who could afford to purchase still could purchase. Mortgage transaction numbers remained virtually the same during and after the crash of 1989 - someone showed the evidence on HPC earlier this year and it was a surprise. The only people really hurt are those who bought prior to the crash whose circumstances then change. Also the crash was huge. We bought a house in 1995 for £37,500 - our neighbour paid nearly £100,000 in 1988
Speaking to people in NI where the crash did occur in 2008 (50% drops are as common as North of the Border as in Eire) the world has continued. And bankruptcy due to an illtimed house purchase is something others seem to accept on the basis of there but for the grace of God / age would have been us...
So I'm sorry but this economy is a blooming mess because of high house prices. In fact I would probably go as far as Brexit is due to high house prices...
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
Agree. But it's necessary.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
Depends how big the crash is, IMHO. 20% fall in the south east would hit some very hard, but most working age people would benefit from it, and in particular a proportion of first time buyers would be able to access housing. It would hit the wealth of the retired but they can handle it. I think it would be a good thing, even though I would be one of the hardest hit, having bought myself last year at somewhere close to the top of the market. Although perhaps on the bright side it would be easier to upsize if I could sell and get a deposit together. I don't believe it would seriously hit supply, because people would keep building as the prices are so inflated anyway. 50% fall on the other hand would be a catastrophic for everyone who is invested in the housing market in some way. It is a case of careful what you wish for.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
A house-price crash would reduce, not increase, the supply of new houses, and it would also completely freeze up the market for existing houses. If it were accompanied by an increase in interest rates, it wouldn't do much if anything for affordability for the young. Mortgages would become near-impossible to get. Young families would be trapped in negative equity, and those who lost their jobs would be bankrupted.
You really, really don't want to go there, as anyone who remembers the last time it happened will confirm.
The problem is that house price booms feel GOOD for governments. In the short-term, there are only a few people who are looking to enter the housing market, while there are lots of people who own homes. Rising house prices feed into the wealth effect, and suppresses the savings rate as people look at the big balance in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
In the long-run, they are clearly bad. The number of people locked out the housing market rises, and the economy becomes dependent on people cashing in capital gains.
The issue, as you rightly point out, is that unwinding a house price boom is extremely painful and doesn't necessarily (in the short term) increase the availability of houses (as building drops and people find themselves trapped in negative equity). Falling house prices would almost certainly drive the UK savings rate up, which the economy needs, but which would likely push the country into recession.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Not if their parents have an expensive house they will inherit and they are on an average salary
Most people share the inheritance of their house while having to buy an entire one themselves. So on average they would gain.
Also having the only way of getting a house is inheriting it when you are 50 odd is not the best way to run a country.
If your parents have a roughly £1 million house your sibling and you inherit that is £500 000 inheritance before inheritance tax thanks to Osborne's inheritance tax cut if your parents are in the majority who avoid residential care.
Parents can also use equity release etc to help their children get a deposit early on and lower house prices only helps get on the ladder if banks lend at the same ratio
If the children want the same quality of housing as their parents in your scenario they would still have to come up with £500k. If house prices halved then they would inherit £250k each and it would only cost the £250k to buy the same type of house as it would only cost £500k.
A lot of people won't inherit anything from their parents anyway and the idea that high house prices are ok because you might inherit some % towards a house is wrong in my opinion.
Depends if your parents have also helped you with deposits via equity release, savings etc earlier on and of course not everyone will want to spend that £500k on a bigger house.
It may be of debatable merit but for many with parents in London and the home counties who own property it is a big issue
The problem is that house price booms feel GOOD for governments. In the short-term, there are only a few people who are looking to enter the housing market, while there are lots of people who own homes. Rising house prices feed into the wealth effect, and suppresses the savings rate as people look at the big balance in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
In the long-run, they are clearly bad. The number of people locked out the housing market rises, and the economy becomes dependent on people cashing in capital gains.
The issue, as you rightly point out, is that unwinding a house price boom is extremely painful and doesn't necessarily (in the short term) increase the availability of houses (as building drops and people find themselves trapped in negative equity). Falling house prices would almost certainly drive the UK savings rate up, which the economy needs, but which would likely push the country into recession.
The ideal would be a prolonged period of stable nominal house prices, so that they become more affordable in real terms without the disruptive effects of a sudden drop. Not easy to engineer, however.
Also, people need to be more realistic about expectations. Homes in and close to London, like homes in all major world cities, ain't gonna be cheap whatever happens, or, at least, not whilst London remains prosperous.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
A house-price crash would reduce, not increase, the supply of new houses, and it would also completely freeze up the market for existing houses. If it were accompanied by an increase in interest rates, it wouldn't do much if anything for affordability for the young. Mortgages would become near-impossible to get. Young families would be trapped in negative equity, and those who lost their jobs would be bankrupted.
You really, really don't want to go there, as anyone who remembers the last time it happened will confirm.
The problem is that house price booms feel GOOD for governments. In the short-term, there are only a few people who are looking to enter the housing market, while there are lots of people who own homes. Rising house prices feed into the wealth effect, and suppresses the savings rate as people look at the big balance in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
In the long-run, they are clearly bad. The number of people locked out the housing market rises, and the economy becomes dependent on people cashing in capital gains.
The issue, as you rightly point out, is that unwinding a house price boom is extremely painful and doesn't necessarily (in the short term) increase the availability of houses (as building drops and people find themselves trapped in negative equity). Falling house prices would almost certainly drive the UK savings rate up, which the economy needs, but which would likely push the country into recession.
One way of tackling this would be to require all mortgages on residential property to be on a repayment basis. Landlords, who can borrow on an interest-only basis, can therefore bid up prices out of the reach of owner-occupiers, who nowadays almost always have to borrow on a repayment basis. Need to level that particular playing field.
We're going to crash out without any deal aren't we?
I can't see the EU compromising in the ways needed for it to happen.
Agreeing a transition won't be too difficult - there are plenty of off-the-shelf models that wouldn't need much tweaking. The problem is the final settlement, for which there is a practical deadline of the next GE, and where an inability for both sides to sufficiently compromise might well produce a breakdown in talks and a Crash Brexit.
The EU can't let Britain have a better trade deal, or even one that is nearly as good, outside than when a member - that's obvious. The idea that one can 'have our cake and eat it'* is ridiculous.
*It can be used to say that one cannot or should not have or want more than one deserves or is reasonable, or that one cannot or should not try to have two incompatible things. (Wikipedia)
Also, people need to be more realistic about expectations. Homes in and close to London, like homes in all major world cities, ain't gonna be cheap whatever happens, or, at least, not whilst London remains prosperous.
I would be interested to see polling on whether Brexit voters want London to be a 'major world city'. My guess is that the majority do not.
We're going to crash out without any deal aren't we?
I can't see the EU compromising in the ways needed for it to happen.
Agreeing a transition won't be too difficult - there are plenty of off-the-shelf models that wouldn't need much tweaking. The problem is the final settlement, for which there is a practical deadline of the next GE, and where an inability for both sides to sufficiently compromise might well produce a breakdown in talks and a Crash Brexit.
The EU can't let Britain have a better trade deal, or even one that is nearly as good, outside than when a member - that's obvious. The idea that one can 'have our cake and eat it'* is ridiculous.
*It can be used to say that one cannot or should not have or want more than one deserves or is reasonable, or that one cannot or should not try to have two incompatible things. (Wikipedia)
So what you are accepting is that it is possible for Britain to have a trade deal that is nearly as good as the one we have now but that it will be EU malice that will prevent it happening. Why do you expect we should ever have considered staying in a union that would act in such a way?
We're going to crash out without any deal aren't we?
I can't see the EU compromising in the ways needed for it to happen.
Agreeing a transition won't be too difficult - there are plenty of off-the-shelf models that wouldn't need much tweaking. The problem is the final settlement, for which there is a practical deadline of the next GE, and where an inability for both sides to sufficiently compromise might well produce a breakdown in talks and a Crash Brexit.
The EU can't let Britain have a better trade deal, or even one that is nearly as good, outside than when a member - that's obvious. The idea that one can 'have our cake and eat it'* is ridiculous.
*It can be used to say that one cannot or should not have or want more than one deserves or is reasonable, or that one cannot or should not try to have two incompatible things. (Wikipedia)
So what you are accepting is that it is possible for Britain to have a trade deal that is nearly as good as the one we have now but that it will be EU malice that will prevent it happening. Why do you expect we should ever have considered staying in a union that would act in such a way?
No trade deal, even Switzerland's, can be as good as single market membership. You are abusing a false premise to set up a straw man argument.
Also, people need to be more realistic about expectations. Homes in and close to London, like homes in all major world cities, ain't gonna be cheap whatever happens, or, at least, not whilst London remains prosperous.
I would be interested to see polling on whether Brexit voters want London to be a 'major world city'. My guess is that the majority do not.
It probably always will be, London and Paris are the two major world cities in Europe and that is unlikely to change even if Paris closes the gap on London post Brexit
The problem is that house price booms feel GOOD for governments. In the short-term, there are only a few people who are looking to enter the housing market, while there are lots of people who own homes. Rising house prices feed into the wealth effect, and suppresses the savings rate as people look at the big balance in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
In the long-run, they are clearly bad. The number of people locked out the housing market rises, and the economy becomes dependent on people cashing in capital gains.
The issue, as you rightly point out, is that unwinding a house price boom is extremely painful and doesn't necessarily (in the short term) increase the availability of houses (as building drops and people find themselves trapped in negative equity). Falling house prices would almost certainly drive the UK savings rate up, which the economy needs, but which would likely push the country into recession.
The ideal would be a prolonged period of stable nominal house prices, so that they become more affordable in real terms without the disruptive effects of a sudden drop. Not easy to engineer, however.
Also, people need to be more realistic about expectations. Homes in and close to London, like homes in all major world cities, ain't gonna be cheap whatever happens, or, at least, not whilst London remains prosperous.
Indeed. I just came back from a Canadian holiday and the main talking point seemed to be the fact that Vancouver now has the third most expensive housing market in the world. And there is not exactly a shortage of land in the area.
On the bright side it might crash the ridiculous housing market.
Be careful what you wish for. That wouldn't be pretty, and those most badly hit would be the young.
In the long term a reduction in house prices would be the best thing possible for the young.
Yep but, as they say, you can't get to there from here. Or you can but it would be pretty bloody. Every government wants to rebase housing costs, but to do so would involve a bloodbath.
Agree. But it's necessary.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
Depends how big the crash is, IMHO. 20% fall in the south east would hit some very hard, but most working age people would benefit from it, and in particular a proportion of first time buyers would be able to access housing. It would hit the wealth of the retired but they can handle it. I think it would be a good thing, even though I would be one of the hardest hit, having bought myself last year at somewhere close to the top of the market. Although perhaps on the bright side it would be easier to upsize if I could sell and get a deposit together. I don't believe it would seriously hit supply, because people would keep building as the prices are so inflated anyway. 50% fall on the other hand would be a catastrophic for everyone who is invested in the housing market in some way. It is a case of careful what you wish for.
I think the point for many of us is that people should not be' invested' in the housing market. That indeed is the root of the problem. Houses should be for living in, not making money out of through appreciating prices.
I am somewhat surprised by that and again it is a good example of not relying on personal experience. I have a small company that makes model vehicles for wargamers and model railway enthusiasts. We have seen our overseas orders more than double in the last year which I had assumed was a direct consequence of the drop in the value of sterling. I can only assume we are in a sweet spot in a particular market where the drop in cost for overseas customers is significant in a way it may not be for larger scale companies.
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out. (2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it. (3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed. (4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.
That's not necessarily true. It's certainly the position while Britain's still within the EU but it should be something that is open to negotiation for a transitional period e.g. the UK should seek to be able to conclude agreements with third countries after it has left the EU, while it is in some transitional state (which may involve remaining within the SM), but that such agreements cannot come into force until the transitional agreement ends.
I am somewhat surprised by that and again it is a good example of not relying on personal experience. I have a small company that makes model vehicles for wargamers and model railway enthusiasts. We have seen our overseas orders more than double in the last year which I had assumed was a direct consequence of the drop in the value of sterling. I can only assume we are in a sweet spot in a particular market where the drop in cost for overseas customers is significant in a way it may not be for larger scale companies.
Your experience is the correct one. However, where does your components come from ? Are you counting that ?
Larger companies are like super-tankers. It takes time. In any case, the benefits of a devaluation only lasts for a short while as the import prices become more expensive. Of course, if the inputs are mostly wages then the advantages will last longer until wage rises catch up.
Comments
Edit. I have no idea which version I speak as it is a kind of pidgin of both.
I can't see the EU compromising in the ways needed for it to happen.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/906128635131723777
As interest rates rise and as BTL mortgages are no longer offered like candy I suspect prices will fall regardless of what the government wants...
Interestingly prices around my neck of the woods are the same as in 2004 and still feel over priced...
Also having the only way of getting a house is inheriting it when you are 50 odd is not the best way to run a country.
Pricing an entire generation out of having anywhere decent to live is not sustainable.
Parents can also use equity release etc to help their children get a deposit early on and lower house prices only helps get on the ladder if banks lend at the same ratio
1. Close them down and merge with the Mirror?
2. Maintain them with their Tory/UKIP line, to reassure current readers?
3. Migrate to a more non-aligned or even pro-Labourposition, to attract new readers?
I don't think most tabloid readers buy papers primarily for their political line, but the core Express readers may do. I'd think they'll try 2 and then 1.
You really, really don't want to go there, as anyone who remembers the last time it happened will confirm.
A lot of people won't inherit anything from their parents anyway and the idea that high house prices are ok because you might inherit some % towards a house is wrong in my opinion.
The housing supply went up in the 90s after the late 80s crash.
It trapped those people who had bought just before the crash who had to wait a long time for prices to rise again
Those who could afford to purchase still could purchase. Mortgage transaction numbers remained virtually the same during and after the crash of 1989 - someone showed the evidence on HPC earlier this year and it was a surprise.
The only people really hurt are those who bought prior to the crash whose circumstances then change.
Also the crash was huge. We bought a house in 1995 for £37,500 - our neighbour paid nearly £100,000 in 1988
Speaking to people in NI where the crash did occur in 2008 (50% drops are as common as North of the Border as in Eire) the world has continued. And bankruptcy due to an illtimed house purchase is something others seem to accept on the basis of there but for the grace of God / age would have been us...
So I'm sorry but this economy is a blooming mess because of high house prices. In fact I would probably go as far as Brexit is due to high house prices...
20% fall in the south east would hit some very hard, but most working age people would benefit from it, and in particular a proportion of first time buyers would be able to access housing. It would hit the wealth of the retired but they can handle it.
I think it would be a good thing, even though I would be one of the hardest hit, having bought myself last year at somewhere close to the top of the market. Although perhaps on the bright side it would be easier to upsize if I could sell and get a deposit together.
I don't believe it would seriously hit supply, because people would keep building as the prices are so inflated anyway.
50% fall on the other hand would be a catastrophic for everyone who is invested in the housing market in some way.
It is a case of careful what you wish for.
In the long-run, they are clearly bad. The number of people locked out the housing market rises, and the economy becomes dependent on people cashing in capital gains.
The issue, as you rightly point out, is that unwinding a house price boom is extremely painful and doesn't necessarily (in the short term) increase the availability of houses (as building drops and people find themselves trapped in negative equity). Falling house prices would almost certainly drive the UK savings rate up, which the economy needs, but which would likely push the country into recession.
It may be of debatable merit but for many with parents in London and the home counties who own property it is a big issue
Also, people need to be more realistic about expectations. Homes in and close to London, like homes in all major world cities, ain't gonna be cheap whatever happens, or, at least, not whilst London remains prosperous.
The idea that one can 'have our cake and eat it'* is ridiculous.
*It can be used to say that one cannot or should not have or want more than one deserves or is reasonable, or that one cannot or should not try to have two incompatible things. (Wikipedia)
NEW THREAD
Larger companies are like super-tankers. It takes time. In any case, the benefits of a devaluation only lasts for a short while as the import prices become more expensive. Of course, if the inputs are mostly wages then the advantages will last longer until wage rises catch up.