A brilliant demonstration of everything that SKS is missing. He was a great loss and is still fondly remembered by the older denizens of Faculty.
I tentatively agree: thus far, SKS has done nothing resembling this clip of John Smith at his best.
However, to be fair to SKS, this sort of knockabout only works when you have a packed House of Commons. So far, SKS has had to perform under surreal Zoom conditions, where humour just doesn't work as well. Even Boris's gags have rather fallen flat under the current conditions. So, I'd reserve final judgement until the HoC reverts to normal.
That's a very fair point. The life has been drained out of the House of Commons by Covid and that undoubtedly makes it harder for the LOTO than the PM. I just struggle to recall SKS ever making a joke. Its not in his repertoire.
What are you on about? That's Conservativehome, an independent blog, highlighting public vacancies to try and get a few Conservatives to apply, in a somewhat forlorn attempt to stop them automatically going to people who read the ads that are still (afaik) placed in the Guardian. The fact that you see this as scandalous effrontery speaks to Leon's earlier point about the left being appalled that everyone isn't rolling over for them.
Like I said, not even trying to hide. One more small step into Orbánary.
If they can be advertised in the Guardian, they can be advertised there.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
Any polling on this? Maybe I'm unusual, but I personally couldn't give a fuck if the anti-vaxxers start to snuff it in the autumn.
If all of the vaccine passport talk now is simply about scaring people into getting vaccinated, then fine (though I'm not sure about the psychology whether it will work).
You only have to look at the polling prior to the vaccines as our deaths were world beating and the Tories started trailing in the polls.
Not sure that follows. Surely the problem was the government was perceived as dithering. Let's be honest, any individual death isn't a problem. It's the impact on the NHS that is the concern.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
Its very simple. We Had to leave the EU so that we could Take Back Control of our borders and stop people coming in. The Tories have done this, Labour opposed it. Labour should Shut Up complaining about our border being Closed and instead Cheer On the good old PM in his plans to Reopen our Closed border so we can go to Marbelloh and eat Egg and Chips on holiday.
Yes I know, this is the opposite of reality. But this is what the wazzocks out there believe. Labour can't attack the government for leaving open a border which Sneering Priti has definitely Shut.
Rather ironic that you mention ‘sneering Priti’ in a comment that is drenched with snobbish contempt for your fellow Britons, sorry, ‘the wazzocks out there who eat egg and chips’
"Egg and chips" (which I like btw) is a classic and oft-used signifier of, not so much class, but of cultural limitations and predictability and downmarketness. For example, the tedious husband of Shirley Valentine only ever wanted "chips and egg" for his dinner on a Tuesday. Every Tuesday. It drove her off to a new and richer, more enlightened life in Greece. And Sergeant Lewis in Inspector Morse would often say he was looking forward to having egg and chips for his "tea" (much to his boss's amused disdain). Although funnily enough, and just to show how these things don't always scan perfectly across to the political sphere, Lewis would have certainly voted Remain, whereas Morse might well have been a Leaver.
I think Morse would definitely have been a Remainer. An academic technocrat, he once thought the dons of Oxford should step in to sort out the British economy - certainly no 'had enough of experts' man.
Yes, you're probably right. I think I was stretching there. Trying to create a point rather than making one.
What are you on about? That's Conservativehome, an independent blog, highlighting public vacancies to try and get a few Conservatives to apply, in a somewhat forlorn attempt to stop them automatically going to people who read the ads that are still (afaik) placed in the Guardian. The fact that you see this as scandalous effrontery speaks to Leon's earlier point about the left being appalled that everyone isn't rolling over for them.
Like I said, not even trying to hide. One more small step into Orbánary.
Why should an independent blog hide?
Does the Guardian hide its advertisements?
How times change, for those of us who remember how these things were done in the 80s and 90s.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be outraged about here - various jobs are currently being advertised in a public manner in the official way, and interested groups and parties are encouraging people to apply?
How does a group or website pointing to an open, public advert for a job have any impact on the appointment to that job?
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants.
If it was then it would be closing the border properly rather than this half-hearted effort. Once again, it seems to be pushing domestic restrictions over closing the border. I don't understand it at all. Each NPI carries a much greater burden than simply shutting the border an mandating quarantine for all arrivals and selectively reopening them to vaccinated people from countries such as Israel and the US where the virus is in permanent retreat.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Not terrified enough to take border control seriously though.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I disagree wholeheartedly with point 4.
It is absolutely unreasonable to insist by law upon "precautions" after the pandemic is over and once legal restrictions on social distancing have been lifted. Which is where we are, the pandemic is effectively over already (we have no excess deaths) and legal restrictions are due to expire on 21/6.
If people choose to make precautions of their own free will that is their choice, but it shouldn't be upon the state to insist upon it by law.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Maybe but the level of variant talk from HMG has dialled down a lot lately.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
What is wrong, with having a label - as greater effort made as possible not to be replicable, though fraud will still happen (as it will with the full thing), to say when you've been vaccinated, in your passport? It will be there for foreign travel, and it can be demanded by venues and events if they so desire.
Anything more is just Government/civil service wanting to use the situation to accrue more power over the individual to themselves - understandable when these types of people get into a certain mindset - perhaps even for what they believe to be good reasons, but definitely to be rejected.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Believe that if you want. Its a complete delusion.
The government have grown used to the power you all so readily and happily surrendered to them, and they have got into the habit of ruling by diktat. They will continue in this fashion until they are disabused of their power.
On top of condition, comes condition. Vaccines are no longer enough (not that they were ever going to be). Now we have test our way to freedom. With the implicit threat that lockdown goes on unless you obey.
So test away, test away! jump through the latest hoop. Or stop playing this game completely and demand your freedom back unconditionally.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
Rates are a huge factor, not only in stretching massively the size of loans people can afford to take out (so long as rates stay low), but by reducing the attractiveness of other investments relative to property and hence driving people towards BTL as a way to secure income from their capital.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
How big of a factor, when buy-to-let purchasers are primarily cash purchasers? 🙄
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Believe that if you want. Its a complete delusion.
The government have grown used to the power you all so readily and happily surrendered to them, and they have got into the habit of ruling by diktat. They will continue in this fashion until they are disabused of their power.
On top of condition, comes condition. Vaccines are no longer enough (not that they were ever going to be). Now we have test our way to freedom. With the implicit threat that lockdown goes on unless you obey.
So test away, test away! jump through the latest hoop. Or stop playing this game completely and demand your freedom back unconditionally.
I think we agree that they will be disabused of their power only when polls suggest that they should be. Do you agree that the end of Sunak's financial support should tip the scales somewhat in this regard?
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
Rates are a huge factor, not only in stretching massively the size of loans people can afford to take out (so long as rates stay low), but by reducing the attractiveness of other investments relative to property and hence driving people towards BTL as a way to secure income from their capital.
Except that's not true. BTL purchases peaked when rates were 6%, they have ground to a halt in recent years at 0%.
How about dealing with facts that are true instead of claims that are false?
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
The thing is though that everything points to it being more than just a certificate you flash at the door and prior experience with the original nhs app with its massive proposed data collection and centralised data base system leads a lot of people to assume it will once again attempt massive over reach. Even a qr code you have to scan is far too intrusive because it allows central tracking of individuals.
Imagine for example as a for instance you scan the qr code on entry into a bar. Next morning you are driving, a police car's traffic cam scans your number plate as they currently do and comes back with the info you were in a bar last night. Better pull you over and breathalyse you. Think it won't happen? I point at all the massive police overreach with current covid restrictions
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
The thing is though that everything points to it being more than just a certificate you flash at the door and prior experience with the original nhs app with its massive proposed data collection and centralised data base system leads a lot of people to assume it will once again attempt massive over reach. Even a qr code you have to scan is far too intrusive because it allows central tracking of individuals.
Imagine for example as a for instance you scan the qr code on entry into a bar. Next morning you are driving, a police car's traffic cam scans your number plate as they currently do and comes back with the info you were in a bar last night. Better pull you over and breathalyse you. Think it won't happen? I point at all the massive police overreach with current covid restrictions
I did say enough but the answer is that it will happen if the law permits it and will not if it doesn't.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
The thing is though that everything points to it being more than just a certificate you flash at the door and prior experience with the original nhs app with its massive proposed data collection and centralised data base system leads a lot of people to assume it will once again attempt massive over reach. Even a qr code you have to scan is far too intrusive because it allows central tracking of individuals.
Imagine for example as a for instance you scan the qr code on entry into a bar. Next morning you are driving, a police car's traffic cam scans your number plate as they currently do and comes back with the info you were in a bar last night. Better pull you over and breathalyse you. Think it won't happen? I point at all the massive police overreach with current covid restrictions
And in NW London. Not welcome. Really irritating decision by god. It's not going to settle though. Not cold enough.
Didn't realise you lived in London, hello fellow Londoner!
Oh yes. Been here since I was 17 apart from some spells abroad. I'd struggle anywhere else, I think. Nothing specific just the feeling.
Looking at a family break in London @kinabalu@MaxPB I know you guys are close to Hampstead Heath which I've never been to,despite numerous visits to London. Do you think we should rent somewhere close to Hampstead Heath or go for central London, as usual, and travel up. Can't decide.
Hampstead is a lovely place to stay. Would recommend staying in actual Hampstead too, rather than Kilburn or Swiss Cottage.
I'd second that. Couple of very "atmospheric" Irish boozers in Kilburn but that was BC and in any case not the ticket for a family minibreak.
Prefer Muswell Hill. But it's often ruled out by its lack of a tube station. I'm told there was a plan but it fell foul of WWII.
Italy's latest wave shows tentative signs of having peaked. Seasonality? Maybe summer will allow us all time to catch up with vaccinations.
With Easter effects I think it is hard to tell yet. At their present pace Italy will overtake us in total deaths in just over a month. I hope for their sake that doesn't happen.
Italy's latest wave shows tentative signs of having peaked. Seasonality? Maybe summer will allow us all time to catch up with vaccinations.
With Easter effects I think it is hard to tell yet. At their present pace Italy will overtake us in total deaths in just over a month. I hope for their sake that doesn't happen.
Italy have probably always been ahead of us in total deaths. Their excess deaths have consistently been massively more than their recorded deaths.
They'll overtake us in known Covid deaths which is even worse. Italy have been really badly hit and it really puts paid to the insane notions of things like 0.15% IFR or that natural 'herd immunity' could be achieved without a vaccine.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Believe that if you want. Its a complete delusion.
The government have grown used to the power you all so readily and happily surrendered to them, and they have got into the habit of ruling by diktat. They will continue in this fashion until they are disabused of their power.
On top of condition, comes condition. Vaccines are no longer enough (not that they were ever going to be). Now we have test our way to freedom. With the implicit threat that lockdown goes on unless you obey.
So test away, test away! jump through the latest hoop. Or stop playing this game completely and demand your freedom back unconditionally.
I think we agree that they will be disabused of their power only when polls suggest that they should be. Do you agree that the end of Sunak's financial support should tip the scales somewhat in this regard?
Who said Sunak's support is ending?
As regards the polls, who knows. I've read some murmurings about who controls certain pollsters and who contributes to their coffers. I don't attach much to that.
What I know is that May 06 is a free and fair election. That will tell us more about how people feel, really.
And in NW London. Not welcome. Really irritating decision by god. It's not going to settle though. Not cold enough.
Didn't realise you lived in London, hello fellow Londoner!
Oh yes. Been here since I was 17 apart from some spells abroad. I'd struggle anywhere else, I think. Nothing specific just the feeling.
Looking at a family break in London @kinabalu@MaxPB I know you guys are close to Hampstead Heath which I've never been to,despite numerous visits to London. Do you think we should rent somewhere close to Hampstead Heath or go for central London, as usual, and travel up. Can't decide.
Hampstead is a lovely place to stay. Would recommend staying in actual Hampstead too, rather than Kilburn or Swiss Cottage.
I'd second that. Couple of very "atmospheric" Irish boozers in Kilburn but that was BC and in any case not the ticket for a family minibreak.
Prefer Muswell Hill. But it's often ruled out by its lack of a tube station. I'm told there was a plan but it fell foul of WWII.
Hampstead is beautiful, I’d definitely stay there
Quite a lack of hotels, however
In the 80s and early 90s we used to stay at a Trusthouse Forte very close to Hampstead if we were visiting London. But I don't think it exists now, neither the hotel nor the company.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Believe that if you want. Its a complete delusion.
The government have grown used to the power you all so readily and happily surrendered to them, and they have got into the habit of ruling by diktat. They will continue in this fashion until they are disabused of their power.
On top of condition, comes condition. Vaccines are no longer enough (not that they were ever going to be). Now we have test our way to freedom. With the implicit threat that lockdown goes on unless you obey.
So test away, test away! jump through the latest hoop. Or stop playing this game completely and demand your freedom back unconditionally.
I think we agree that they will be disabused of their power only when polls suggest that they should be. Do you agree that the end of Sunak's financial support should tip the scales somewhat in this regard?
Who said Sunak's support is ending?
As regards the polls, who knows. I've read some murmurings about who controls certain pollsters and who contributes to their coffers. I don't attach much to that.
What I know is that May 06 is a free and fair election. That will tell us more about how people feel, really.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
Rates are a huge factor, not only in stretching massively the size of loans people can afford to take out (so long as rates stay low), but by reducing the attractiveness of other investments relative to property and hence driving people towards BTL as a way to secure income from their capital.
Indeed. This is not the greatest topic for a dispute. It lacks a viable opposing view.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
This is similar to anti terrorism measures - the general public only knows about actual attacks, whereas security forces know about those that have been foiled.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
Rates are a huge factor, not only in stretching massively the size of loans people can afford to take out (so long as rates stay low), but by reducing the attractiveness of other investments relative to property and hence driving people towards BTL as a way to secure income from their capital.
Indeed. This is not the greatest topic for a dispute. It lacks a viable opposing view.
Apart from the bricks and mortar facts. 🤦♂️
2007: P/E ⬆ when rates were 6% Buy to Let ⬆ when rates were 6% First time buyers ⬇ when rates were 6%
2019 vs 2007: P/E ↔ when rates were 0% Buy to Let ⬇ when rates were 0% First time buyers ⬆ when rates were 0%
But keep dealing with your myths instead of the real world. Entirely typical of you that is.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
A bug to some is a feature to others.
A bug is only a feature when it's been discovered and you've found marketing is cheaper than fixing the issue.
You can call it a passport or a certificate but any business insisting on seeing such a document prior to letting people in is going to be losing customers.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
This is similar to anti terrorism measures - the general public only knows about actual attacks, whereas security forces know about those that have been foiled.
No it isn't, the variant analysis is released every week by PHE ans COG UK. The latter isn't even a government organisation, it's a bunch of independent scientists in the UK that banded together to start sequencing COVID.
There is highly likely to be enough cross reactivity from antibodies, t-cells and b-cells against all variants of COVID with all of the vaccines. We know that Pfizer, Moderna, AZ and Novavax work pretty well against the P1 variant.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
A bug to some is a feature to others.
A bug is only a feature when it's been discovered and you've found marketing is cheaper than fixing the issue.
You can call it a passport or a certificate but any business insisting on seeing such a document prior to letting people in is going to be losing customers.
Not necessarily. Not necesarily by any means.
Some businesses might voluntarily, without enducement or restrictions threatened, choose to participate because they believe it would be popular. Just like many restaurants advertise having a five-star hygiene rating.
People like going to places that are clean and healthy. If a business can advertise itself as "cleaner" in perceptions to the majority who are vaccinated then that might win more business than the unvaccinated minority they lose.
O/T but i see the Economist has an article, dealing with the issue we discussed here a couple of days ago. A big reason for growing Conservative success in the North and Midlands (including Red Wall seats) is housing affordability. People can afford to live in a manner that makes them likely to vote Conservative. In London, they can't.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
Come on you are better than that the so called "henry viii powers" are a classic "here is something that has always happened, lets pretend it's really bad by naming it in a way that sounds bad".
You call it 'henry viii' powers, others might call it executive authority been exercised on behalf of the Crown. It's pretty much how (ironically considering the context it is been used) all EU law and directives other than EU treaties entered UK law.
I am clearly in a minority in respect of vaccination certificates ("VCs"), at least on here if not in the general polling. I am going to try 1 more time and then give up.
1. We need to nudge those who are reluctant to have vaccines. These are particularly numerous amongst the young (who often feel it is not a risk to them) and certain ethnic minorities, sometimes because of religious beliefs. 2. VCs should not be compulsory because vaccination is not compulsory. 3. We have learned that certain activities are much more likely to spread the virus than others. Typically those that are indoors, with poor ventilation, large numbers of people shouting or being energetic. 4. If we are to allow those activities to take place without restrictions that make them economically unviable it seems reasonable that we should insist on some precautions. 5. Having a VC is such a precaution and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that those who want to undertake those activities should be able to vouch that they are "safe". Of course such a system can only come into play once everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated. 6. A VC should have no other purpose nor should it be asked for for any other reason nor should it contain access to medical records or history (per @Cyclefree). It shouldn't be able to track you either. 7. Their utility should be examined as the virus diminishes. If the risk is removed then they should be too.
I do feel that those who claim that this is the thin edge of the fascist state and the end of liberty in this country are getting more than a tad carried away with themselves. But there we are. Enough.
I think the government is losing the argument over a simple thing like choice of words:
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement" "Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
My choice of the word "certificate" as opposed to "passport" was not accidental. It is remarkable the government has not done likewise.
O/T but i see the Economist has an article, dealing with the issue we discussed here a couple of days ago. A big reason for growing Conservative success in the North and Midlands (including Red Wall seats) is housing affordability. People can afford to live in a manner that makes them likely to vote Conservative. In London, they can't.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
How big of a factor, when buy-to-let purchasers are primarily cash purchasers? 🙄
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
Need to de-clutter. Consider:
(i) You have a large sum on deposit earning a lot because rates are high. (ii) You have a large sum on deposit earning peanuts because rates are low.
Situation (ii) is an incentive - relative to (i) - to take your money out of cash and "put it to work" by purchasing other asset types, eg shares or property.
Thus property demand (and hence value) is inversely correlated to interest rates. Ceteris paribus, if rates go up property prices fall, and vice versa. Of course in practice we don't get ceteris paribus. There are many other factors in play at the same time and many of those are in turn cross correlated - it's a helluva rich soup - so one can't isolate precisely and scientifically the impact of each one in isolation. But that interest rates are a significant factor in property prices and the correlation is negative is undeniable and universally accepted. Philip.
However it does mean a by election in Chesham and Amersham where the Tories had a majority of 16,223 over the second placed Liberal Democrats in 2019. It is in the district of Chiltern in Buckinghamshire which voted 55% to Remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum.
Very good story on the development of a cheap vaccine that can be produced pretty well worldwide in old style vaccine facilities - but also has a high tech, apparently very effective spike protein mimic design.
And in NW London. Not welcome. Really irritating decision by god. It's not going to settle though. Not cold enough.
Didn't realise you lived in London, hello fellow Londoner!
Oh yes. Been here since I was 17 apart from some spells abroad. I'd struggle anywhere else, I think. Nothing specific just the feeling.
Looking at a family break in London @kinabalu@MaxPB I know you guys are close to Hampstead Heath which I've never been to,despite numerous visits to London. Do you think we should rent somewhere close to Hampstead Heath or go for central London, as usual, and travel up. Can't decide.
Hampstead is a lovely place to stay. Would recommend staying in actual Hampstead too, rather than Kilburn or Swiss Cottage.
I'd second that. Couple of very "atmospheric" Irish boozers in Kilburn but that was BC and in any case not the ticket for a family minibreak.
Prefer Muswell Hill. But it's often ruled out by its lack of a tube station. I'm told there was a plan but it fell foul of WWII.
Hampstead is beautiful, I’d definitely stay there
Quite a lack of hotels, however
Yeah would have to do an Air BNB but contact the owner direct if poss, we saved about a grand doing that on ‘admin’
Another by election . Cheryl Gillan has passed away.
Chesham and Amersham is the sort of seat that the Lib Dems would once have really fancied at a by election. Not sure that they are in that sort of state right now though.
Been having a socially distanced chat with someone high up in South Yorkshire health about the vaccine passports.
Apparently they aren't the April/May/June easing up but for the autumn and winter times when we'll all need a booster top ups and be a nudge for people to get their booster jab.
This could all be done with a simple QR code but this government likes a good power grab over the people.
See the Henry VIII powers for Brexit and the legislation to ban protests and judicial reviews.
That doesn't make any sense because the booster jab is unlikely to be available for under 50s initially so the government would have to shut us all out of going to the cinema etc...
It's just a way for the government to hold on to all of these powers they will lose in September once our vaccine programme has all but eradicated COVID and we achieve herd immunity.
I think because of the lag between the age groups getting vaccinated the young wouldn't get locked out of cinemas etc by the time of the booster jabs.
Agree on your latter sentence.
Which totally defeats the point! Surely the only reason for having these things is if we are trying to keep the economy going as much as possible whilst fighting the virus. But we'd have to accept that we are doing so at the cost of discriminating against those who haven't had the chance to get the latest vaccine.
As much as looking at the science we also have to look at the politics.
Boris Johnson and the Tories know they are buggered if there's another wave of avoidable deaths from Covid-19.
99% of deaths are in JVCI groups 1-9, 99.9% in groups 1-10. Groups 1-9 will be immediately eligible and I don't see why uptake would be any lower than now. The issue is going to be securing enough doses to cover all 32m in those groups. There's a reason the minister is talking about groups 1-4 only for now.
I think this government is terrified of new variants. It explains a lot of their actions.
Believe that if you want. Its a complete delusion.
The government have grown used to the power you all so readily and happily surrendered to them, and they have got into the habit of ruling by diktat. They will continue in this fashion until they are disabused of their power.
On top of condition, comes condition. Vaccines are no longer enough (not that they were ever going to be). Now we have test our way to freedom. With the implicit threat that lockdown goes on unless you obey.
So test away, test away! jump through the latest hoop. Or stop playing this game completely and demand your freedom back unconditionally.
I think we agree that they will be disabused of their power only when polls suggest that they should be. Do you agree that the end of Sunak's financial support should tip the scales somewhat in this regard?
Who said Sunak's support is ending?
As regards the polls, who knows. I've read some murmurings about who controls certain pollsters and who contributes to their coffers. I don't attach much to that.
What I know is that May 06 is a free and fair election. That will tell us more about how people feel, really.
May 06 was fifteen years ago.
Ha! A practical illustration of that point you made the other day - for my money the best point you've ever made on here, it was that good - in favour of day first then month to avoid ambiguity. So not May 06 but 06 May. Or just 6 May. Or 6th May. Or 6th OF May. Whatever. Just not the braindead May 06.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
How big of a factor, when buy-to-let purchasers are primarily cash purchasers? 🙄
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
Need to de-clutter. Consider:
(i) You have a large sum on deposit earning a lot because rates are high. (ii) You have a large sum on deposit earning peanuts because rates are low.
Situation (ii) is an incentive - relative to (i) - to take your money out of cash and "put it to work" by purchasing other asset types, eg shares or property.
Thus property demand (and hence value) is inversely correlated to interest rates. Ceteris paribus, if rates go up property prices fall, and vice versa. Of course in practice we don't get ceteris paribus. There are many other factors in play at the same time and many of those are in turn cross correlated - it's a helluva rich soup - so one can't isolate precisely and scientifically the impact of each one in isolation. But that interest rates are a significant factor in property prices and the correlation is negative is undeniable and universally accepted. Philip.
Bullshit.
(i) is never true.
When base rate is say 3% then the banks offer less than 3% on your deposit. When base rate is say 6% then banks offer less than 6% on your deposit. At no stage is it ever considered "a lot" to keep your sum on deposit. Not to forget there is inflation to take into account too.
Go back to 2007 and find me a single finance article, anywhere, ever that advised people to keep their large sum on deposit because "it was earning a lot". It is never the case. At no stage did anybody think "ooh the interest rates are high, I better keep my money on deposit right now". Its just isn't true.
Which is why the facts in the real world don't match your claims.
The reality is that the number of households looking for houses and the number of houses available is the key determinant to p/e ratios, not interest rates.
O/T but i see the Economist has an article, dealing with the issue we discussed here a couple of days ago. A big reason for growing Conservative success in the North and Midlands (including Red Wall seats) is housing affordability. People can afford to live in a manner that makes them likely to vote Conservative. In London, they can't.
It would explain why Labour prefers to keep people poor.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
How big of a factor, when buy-to-let purchasers are primarily cash purchasers? 🙄
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
Need to de-clutter. Consider:
(i) You have a large sum on deposit earning a lot because rates are high. (ii) You have a large sum on deposit earning peanuts because rates are low.
Situation (ii) is an incentive - relative to (i) - to take your money out of cash and "put it to work" by purchasing other asset types, eg shares or property.
Thus property demand (and hence value) is inversely correlated to interest rates. Ceteris paribus, if rates go up property prices fall, and vice versa. Of course in practice we don't get ceteris paribus. There are many other factors in play at the same time and many of those are in turn cross correlated - it's a helluva rich soup - so one can't isolate precisely and scientifically the impact of each one in isolation. But that interest rates are a significant factor in property prices and the correlation is negative is undeniable and universally accepted. Philip.
What's your thoughts on the whole bull market that began in the late 90s and carried on right up to the crash was set off and aggravated by the tax on pension dividends by Gordon Brown? That investors took money out of their pensions and moved to buy to let as investments. Combined with increases in migration, property speculation became a one way bet.
O/T but i see the Economist has an article, dealing with the issue we discussed here a couple of days ago. A big reason for growing Conservative success in the North and Midlands (including Red Wall seats) is housing affordability. People can afford to live in a manner that makes them likely to vote Conservative. In London, they can't.
It would explain why Labour prefers to keep people poor.
Indeed, Labour wants as many people renting as possible to ensure they keep voting Labour, the Tories want as many people owning properties as possible to get them voting Tory
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
How big of a factor, when buy-to-let purchasers are primarily cash purchasers? 🙄
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
Need to de-clutter. Consider:
(i) You have a large sum on deposit earning a lot because rates are high. (ii) You have a large sum on deposit earning peanuts because rates are low.
Situation (ii) is an incentive - relative to (i) - to take your money out of cash and "put it to work" by purchasing other asset types, eg shares or property.
Thus property demand (and hence value) is inversely correlated to interest rates. Ceteris paribus, if rates go up property prices fall, and vice versa. Of course in practice we don't get ceteris paribus. There are many other factors in play at the same time and many of those are in turn cross correlated - it's a helluva rich soup - so one can't isolate precisely and scientifically the impact of each one in isolation. But that interest rates are a significant factor in property prices and the correlation is negative is undeniable and universally accepted. Philip.
What's your thoughts on the whole bull market that began in the late 90s and carried on right up to the crash was set off and aggravated by the tax on pension dividends by Gordon Brown? That investors took money out of their pensions and moved to buy to let as investments. Combined with increases in migration, property speculation became a one way bet.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
Interest rates neither here nor there for BTL. They certainly matter for first time buyers etc who rely upon mortgages, but the introduction of BTL "investors" has broken the link between house prices and interest rates.
Another by election . Cheryl Gillan has passed away.
Chesham and Amersham is the sort of seat that the Lib Dems would once have really fancied at a by election. Not sure that they are in that sort of state right now though.
I don't see it - it's the Tory equivalent of those old donkey with a red rosette places. The toughest part of this by-election will be the fight selection with the winner getting a safe seat that will see them through to retirement.
And how you handle the question of HS2 which if my parents are like others in the constituency will be the only topic of discussion.
Norn Iron riots amongst the Unionist population - the areas in question have lots of posters and slogans on walls and lamp-posts that say "No Irish Sea border". My favourite was "No Unionist can tolerate an Irish Sea border"
Another triumph of Brexit...
Surely a failure of Blair and the GFA. Boris has done Brexit and it is a triumph. I read it on PB.
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
How big of a factor, when buy-to-let purchasers are primarily cash purchasers? 🙄
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
Need to de-clutter. Consider:
(i) You have a large sum on deposit earning a lot because rates are high. (ii) You have a large sum on deposit earning peanuts because rates are low.
Situation (ii) is an incentive - relative to (i) - to take your money out of cash and "put it to work" by purchasing other asset types, eg shares or property.
Thus property demand (and hence value) is inversely correlated to interest rates. Ceteris paribus, if rates go up property prices fall, and vice versa. Of course in practice we don't get ceteris paribus. There are many other factors in play at the same time and many of those are in turn cross correlated - it's a helluva rich soup - so one can't isolate precisely and scientifically the impact of each one in isolation. But that interest rates are a significant factor in property prices and the correlation is negative is undeniable and universally accepted. Philip.
Bullshit.
(i) is never true.
When base rate is say 3% then the banks offer less than 3% on your deposit. When base rate is say 6% then banks offer less than 6% on your deposit. At no stage is it ever considered "a lot" to keep your sum on deposit. Not to forget there is inflation to take into account too.
Go back to 2007 and find me a single finance article, anywhere, ever that advised people to keep their large sum on deposit because "it was earning a lot". It is never the case. At no stage did anybody think "ooh the interest rates are high, I better keep my money on deposit right now". Its just isn't true.
Which is why the facts in the real world don't match your claims.
The reality is that the number of households looking for houses and the number of houses available is the key determinant to p/e ratios, not interest rates.
Ok, so the general negative correlation between interest rates and property prices is not universally accepted.
Politico.com - ‘It’s Not the Dog’: What’s Really Behind the White House Dog’s Biting Problem What Major’s biting episodes tell us about White House workplace stress, the need for calm leadership and why dogs don’t dig the furry baby talk.
"What Major is saying [when he bites] is that he doesn’t feel safe yet," expert dog trainer Cesar Millan said. "And if he doesn’t feel safe, he can’t trust. And if he can’t trust, he can’t feel calm."
President Joe Biden just moved in, and already in the neighborhood he’s the guy with … that dog.
Major, a 3-year-old rescue from a Delaware shelter and the younger of the first family’s two German shepherds, has been “agitated” at the White House, jumping, barking and “charging,” according to CNN’s reporting. Back toward the beginning of March, Major bit a Secret Service agent. More recently, he “nipped” a National Park Service employee.
The White House has tried to cast the episodes as mostly no big deal — a case of “a sweet dog,” in the president’s words, merely trying to get used to his new, busy and disorienting digs. “Major was surprised by an unfamiliar person and reacted in a way that resulted in a minor injury,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said following the initial incident. “Major is still adjusting to his new surroundings,” Michael LaRosa, first lady Jill Biden’s press secretary, said in the wake of the sans-injury second.
With the exception of the coverage on cable news, the basic parameters of the storyline are probably uncomfortably familiar to many American dog owners who think of their pets as beloved and blameless members of the family, only to suffer the chagrin of watching them misbehave out in public. Of course, when our pound pup lunges at the Amazon man, we don’t have to attempt to explain it from the podium in the Brady Briefing Room. The Bidens do, though — and all politics aside, the dog training world is not overly impressed with what they’re hearing.
A quartet of celebrity and expert dog trainers I talked to told me the response from the first family misses key points about a serious but eminently solvable situation. Jason Cohen, Larry Krohn, Joel Silverman and Cesar Millan — some of whom have written bestselling books and have starred in hit TV shows — are stationed from New York to California and have varying styles and focuses, ranging from easing dogs’ social anxiety to lessening their aggression. But they all agreed on one overarching thing.
As Millan put it?
“It’s not the dog.”
It’s the place and the people around the dog. . . .
Very good story on the development of a cheap vaccine that can be produced pretty well worldwide in old style vaccine facilities - but also has a high tech, apparently very effective spike protein mimic design.
Thanks for sharing. I think this once again shows how below the radar advances in genomics, proteomics, and computational biology have fundamentally changed how we do biology and medicine. The new standard is that everything now has to be understood at the molecular level and designed at that level. It is no longer engineering as tinkering (although there are still strong elements of that) but engineering as design for purpose.
Another by election . Cheryl Gillan has passed away.
Chesham and Amersham is the sort of seat that the Lib Dems would once have really fancied at a by election. Not sure that they are in that sort of state right now though.
I don't see it - it's the Tory equivalent of those old donkey with a red rosette places. The toughest part of this by-election will be the fight selection with the winner getting a safe seat that will see them through to retirement.
And how you handle the question of HS2 which if my parents are like others in the constituency will be the only topic of discussion.
The Liberal Democrats support HS2 so I can’t see how that’s a likely campaign issue. Anyway, with construction having started StopHS2 effectively wound itself up last month with Joe Rukin finally finding another job (as what, nobody seems to know) so it’s only a few nutters like ‘Swampy’ still getting seriously worked up over it.
So I would be surprised if this seat wasn’t a fairly easy Tory hold.
O/T but i see the Economist has an article, dealing with the issue we discussed here a couple of days ago. A big reason for growing Conservative success in the North and Midlands (including Red Wall seats) is housing affordability. People can afford to live in a manner that makes them likely to vote Conservative. In London, they can't.
It would explain why Labour prefers to keep people poor.
Indeed, Labour wants as many people renting as possible to ensure they keep voting Labour, the Tories want as many people owning properties as possible to get them voting Tory
Even by your standards, that's nonsense. Evidence?
Interest rate rises are best for buy to let landlords making cash purchases.
A decade ago I used to work with someone who invested in buying homes to let. He left the company as he was making so much more money as a landlord than he was from his day job. He was debt-free and said from memory that every 20 homes he owned per year gave enough profit to buy another home for cash, debt-free.
People like this couldn't care less about interest rates since they aren't paying for a mortgage in the first place. If mortgages become harder to afford then more people need to rent, so he can make more profit.
The idea that interest rates rising would suddenly see a collapse in house prices is for the fairies. There's a reason interest rates falling did not see a rise in house prices. All you would do is make it harder for those who need a mortgage to buy somewhere to live and allow those buying for cash to keep on buying and letting and making even more profit than before.
People need somewhere to live so the one true determinant of prices is supply and demand. Build more houses and prices go down, increase population and prices go up. Whatever the interest rate is people need somewhere to live, the higher the interest rate the more you just tip the scales in favour of cash-only purchasers which is the already wealthy or buy to let landlords.
Interest rates are not wholly irrelevant to a cash buyer. If you're getting a juicy return on your cash for just letting it sit in a bank it can be a disincentive for doing other things with it - eg buying property.
And yet price/earnings ratios peaked when base rate was 6%, not 0%. The stampede of people buying to let peaked when base rate was 6% and has gone into reverse in recent years when base rate was 0%. Why is that?
Because no bank actually offers base rate as their savings rate. Borrowers pay Base + adjustment, savers get paid Base - adjustment.
Interest rates are just one of many factors in play with house prices. But there's no doubt that by and large falling rates are supportive (of prices) and rising rates are a dampener. You'd be alone in the known world if you are disputing this. It's not one for a tumble unless you are desperate for a tumble.
They're a massively, massively overrated factor. Yes I do dispute it.
If interest rates were a major factor then price ratios should have surged after interest rates were slashed from 6% to 0%. They didn't. Why didn't they?
People look at the fact that we have high prices and 0% interest rates and blame the high prices on the 0% interest rates, while ignoring the fact that the prices increased when rates were 6% and haven't risen since.
Blaming house prices on interest rates is about as economically literate as blaming the UK's 125k dead of the virus on the UK's high vaccination scheme - it completely reverses the order in which things occured.
Prices rose in the 00's because population surged far more than construction did. Not because of interest rates or any other crap.
Rates are an overrated factor (in property prices) where people overrate it as a factor ("it's ALL about interest rates") and are an underrated factor where people underrate it as a factor ("nothing to do with interest rates and all that crap") but one thing is as sure as eggs. Rates are a factor. In property prices.
How big of a factor, when buy-to-let purchasers are primarily cash purchasers? 🙄
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
Need to de-clutter. Consider:
(i) You have a large sum on deposit earning a lot because rates are high. (ii) You have a large sum on deposit earning peanuts because rates are low.
Situation (ii) is an incentive - relative to (i) - to take your money out of cash and "put it to work" by purchasing other asset types, eg shares or property.
Thus property demand (and hence value) is inversely correlated to interest rates. Ceteris paribus, if rates go up property prices fall, and vice versa. Of course in practice we don't get ceteris paribus. There are many other factors in play at the same time and many of those are in turn cross correlated - it's a helluva rich soup - so one can't isolate precisely and scientifically the impact of each one in isolation. But that interest rates are a significant factor in property prices and the correlation is negative is undeniable and universally accepted. Philip.
Bullshit.
(i) is never true.
When base rate is say 3% then the banks offer less than 3% on your deposit. When base rate is say 6% then banks offer less than 6% on your deposit. At no stage is it ever considered "a lot" to keep your sum on deposit. Not to forget there is inflation to take into account too.
Go back to 2007 and find me a single finance article, anywhere, ever that advised people to keep their large sum on deposit because "it was earning a lot". It is never the case. At no stage did anybody think "ooh the interest rates are high, I better keep my money on deposit right now". Its just isn't true.
Which is why the facts in the real world don't match your claims.
The reality is that the number of households looking for houses and the number of houses available is the key determinant to p/e ratios, not interest rates.
Ok, so the general negative correlation between interest rates and property prices is not universally accepted.
Because there's you.
There's me and the facts on the ground.
Please find any actual evidence since the rise of BTL cash buyers that give a significant correlation between interest rates and property prices.
When it was just people buying with mortgages their own home then it was true, but BTL broke the link. If people can't buy with their own mortgage they need to rent instead, meaning higher rents, more profit from BTL, so more BTL demand.
If rates goin up you won't see prices go down, you'll see the share of FTBs go down as BTL step in to keep prices high as profits will be there.
O/T but i see the Economist has an article, dealing with the issue we discussed here a couple of days ago. A big reason for growing Conservative success in the North and Midlands (including Red Wall seats) is housing affordability. People can afford to live in a manner that makes them likely to vote Conservative. In London, they can't.
It would explain why Labour prefers to keep people poor.
Indeed, Labour wants as many people renting as possible to ensure they keep voting Labour, the Tories want as many people owning properties as possible to get them voting Tory
Even by your standards, that's nonsense. Evidence?
1979 to date.
Tories see more home ownership, Labour less home ownership.
Just dreadful numbers. I very much hope it is a one off.
Isn't there a day lag?
These are Easter Sunday numbers. That will be a low only comparable to Xmas Day and Boxing Day I would have thought?
The whole weekend figures have been terrible. I find it bewildering that such life saving work is being disrupted by a religious holiday. I hope that it is not indicative of what we can expect for most of April. The amount of available vaccine was to fall but surely not to this level.
Politico.com - ‘It’s Not the Dog’: What’s Really Behind the White House Dog’s Biting Problem What Major’s biting episodes tell us about White House workplace stress, the need for calm leadership and why dogs don’t dig the furry baby talk.
"What Major is saying [when he bites] is that he doesn’t feel safe yet," expert dog trainer Cesar Millan said. "And if he doesn’t feel safe, he can’t trust. And if he can’t trust, he can’t feel calm."
President Joe Biden just moved in, and already in the neighborhood he’s the guy with … that dog.
Major, a 3-year-old rescue from a Delaware shelter and the younger of the first family’s two German shepherds, has been “agitated” at the White House, jumping, barking and “charging,” according to CNN’s reporting. Back toward the beginning of March, Major bit a Secret Service agent. More recently, he “nipped” a National Park Service employee.
The White House has tried to cast the episodes as mostly no big deal — a case of “a sweet dog,” in the president’s words, merely trying to get used to his new, busy and disorienting digs. “Major was surprised by an unfamiliar person and reacted in a way that resulted in a minor injury,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said following the initial incident. “Major is still adjusting to his new surroundings,” Michael LaRosa, first lady Jill Biden’s press secretary, said in the wake of the sans-injury second.
With the exception of the coverage on cable news, the basic parameters of the storyline are probably uncomfortably familiar to many American dog owners who think of their pets as beloved and blameless members of the family, only to suffer the chagrin of watching them misbehave out in public. Of course, when our pound pup lunges at the Amazon man, we don’t have to attempt to explain it from the podium in the Brady Briefing Room. The Bidens do, though — and all politics aside, the dog training world is not overly impressed with what they’re hearing.
A quartet of celebrity and expert dog trainers I talked to told me the response from the first family misses key points about a serious but eminently solvable situation. Jason Cohen, Larry Krohn, Joel Silverman and Cesar Millan — some of whom have written bestselling books and have starred in hit TV shows — are stationed from New York to California and have varying styles and focuses, ranging from easing dogs’ social anxiety to lessening their aggression. But they all agreed on one overarching thing.
As Millan put it?
“It’s not the dog.”
It’s the place and the people around the dog. . . .
Another by election . Cheryl Gillan has passed away.
Chesham and Amersham is the sort of seat that the Lib Dems would once have really fancied at a by election. Not sure that they are in that sort of state right now though.
I don't see it - it's the Tory equivalent of those old donkey with a red rosette places. The toughest part of this by-election will be the fight selection with the winner getting a safe seat that will see them through to retirement.
And how you handle the question of HS2 which if my parents are like others in the constituency will be the only topic of discussion.
The Liberal Democrats support HS2 so I can’t see how that’s a likely campaign issue. Anyway, with construction having started StopHS2 effectively wound itself up last month with Joe Rukin finally finding another job (as what, nobody seems to know) so it’s only a few nutters like ‘Swampy’ still getting seriously worked up over it.
So I would be surprised if this seat wasn’t a fairly easy Tory hold.
It's a safe Tory hold - but HS2 is literally the main topic of conversation round there as according to my parents everywhere you go another hole is being built or another road is closed for HS2 building work...
Comments
Edit: and the government isn't even paying them.
2. Off the top of my head that series on ConHome was already a regular feature when I stopped reading it in late 2015.
How does a group or website pointing to an open, public advert for a job have any impact on the appointment to that job?
It is absolutely unreasonable to insist by law upon "precautions" after the pandemic is over and once legal restrictions on social distancing have been lifted. Which is where we are, the pandemic is effectively over already (we have no excess deaths) and legal restrictions are due to expire on 21/6.
If people choose to make precautions of their own free will that is their choice, but it shouldn't be upon the state to insist upon it by law.
"Certificate" = "Proof of accomplishment, an achievement"
"Passport" = "Required for movement, a constraint"
I did wonder how they were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
Anything more is just Government/civil service wanting to use the situation to accrue more power over the individual to themselves - understandable when these types of people get into a certain mindset - perhaps even for what they believe to be good reasons, but definitely to be rejected.
First dose 26,617
Second dose 39,491
Big Easter effect.
But possibly interesting that the proportion of first doses is increasing again.
The government have grown used to the power you all so readily and happily surrendered to them, and they have got into the habit of ruling by diktat. They will continue in this fashion until they are disabused of their power.
On top of condition, comes condition. Vaccines are no longer enough (not that they were ever going to be). Now we have test our way to freedom. With the implicit threat that lockdown goes on unless you obey.
So test away, test away! jump through the latest hoop. Or stop playing this game completely and demand your freedom back unconditionally.
https://twitter.com/gorbalsgoebbels/status/1379054940446978054?s=20
The idea that all the cash purchasers out there would keep their cash in the bank instead of buying homes and letting them if base rate was 3% or even 6% is one of the most incredible uneconomic ideas out there. 🤦♂️
Price/earnings ratios are no different in 2007 when base rate was close to 6% than it was in 2019 when they were close to 0%. Quite frankly there is no link there between interest rates and P/E ratios.
How about dealing with facts that are true instead of claims that are false?
Imagine for example as a for instance you scan the qr code on entry into a bar. Next morning you are driving, a police car's traffic cam scans your number plate as they currently do and comes back with the info you were in a bar last night. Better pull you over and breathalyse you. Think it won't happen? I point at all the massive police overreach with current covid restrictions
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1379062737049882627
They'll overtake us in known Covid deaths which is even worse. Italy have been really badly hit and it really puts paid to the insane notions of things like 0.15% IFR or that natural 'herd immunity' could be achieved without a vaccine.
As regards the polls, who knows. I've read some murmurings about who controls certain pollsters and who contributes to their coffers. I don't attach much to that.
What I know is that May 06 is a free and fair election. That will tell us more about how people feel, really.
2007:
P/E ⬆ when rates were 6%
Buy to Let ⬆ when rates were 6%
First time buyers ⬇ when rates were 6%
2019 vs 2007:
P/E ↔ when rates were 0%
Buy to Let ⬇ when rates were 0%
First time buyers ⬆ when rates were 0%
But keep dealing with your myths instead of the real world. Entirely typical of you that is.
You can call it a passport or a certificate but any business insisting on seeing such a document prior to letting people in is going to be losing customers.
There is highly likely to be enough cross reactivity from antibodies, t-cells and b-cells against all variants of COVID with all of the vaccines. We know that Pfizer, Moderna, AZ and Novavax work pretty well against the P1 variant.
Some businesses might voluntarily, without enducement or restrictions threatened, choose to participate because they believe it would be popular. Just like many restaurants advertise having a five-star hygiene rating.
People like going to places that are clean and healthy. If a business can advertise itself as "cleaner" in perceptions to the majority who are vaccinated then that might win more business than the unvaccinated minority they lose.
https://mobile.twitter.com/zeynep/status/1379064102824316929
The whole thread is worth reading. Pfizer only, of course. It's unclear whether AZ would be similar.
That would be the Good Friday effect.
You call it 'henry viii' powers, others might call it executive authority been exercised on behalf of the Crown. It's pretty much how (ironically considering the context it is been used) all EU law and directives other than EU treaties entered UK law.
(i) You have a large sum on deposit earning a lot because rates are high.
(ii) You have a large sum on deposit earning peanuts because rates are low.
Situation (ii) is an incentive - relative to (i) - to take your money out of cash and "put it to work" by purchasing other asset types, eg shares or property.
Thus property demand (and hence value) is inversely correlated to interest rates. Ceteris paribus, if rates go up property prices fall, and vice versa. Of course in practice we don't get ceteris paribus. There are many other factors in play at the same time and many of those are in turn cross correlated - it's a helluva rich soup - so one can't isolate precisely and scientifically the impact of each one in isolation. But that interest rates are a significant factor in property prices and the correlation is negative is undeniable and universally accepted. Philip.
https://twitter.com/amandamilling/status/1379071411680083970?s=20
However it does mean a by election in Chesham and Amersham where the Tories had a majority of 16,223 over the second placed Liberal Democrats in 2019. It is in the district of Chiltern in Buckinghamshire which voted 55% to Remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesham_and_Amersham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1379042805755084800
https://twitter.com/BrianForgie/status/1379064582791180292?s=20
(i) is never true.
When base rate is say 3% then the banks offer less than 3% on your deposit. When base rate is say 6% then banks offer less than 6% on your deposit. At no stage is it ever considered "a lot" to keep your sum on deposit. Not to forget there is inflation to take into account too.
Go back to 2007 and find me a single finance article, anywhere, ever that advised people to keep their large sum on deposit because "it was earning a lot". It is never the case. At no stage did anybody think "ooh the interest rates are high, I better keep my money on deposit right now". Its just isn't true.
Which is why the facts in the real world don't match your claims.
The reality is that the number of households looking for houses and the number of houses available is the key determinant to p/e ratios, not interest rates.
That investors took money out of their pensions and moved to buy to let as investments. Combined with increases in migration, property speculation became a one way bet.
https://twitter.com/tracey_crouch/status/1379077590837776388?s=20
She was very dynamic and quite a character in company
Condolences to her family, colleagues, and friends
Interest rates neither here nor there for BTL. They certainly matter for first time buyers etc who rely upon mortgages, but the introduction of BTL "investors" has broken the link between house prices and interest rates.
And how you handle the question of HS2 which if my parents are like others in the constituency will be the only topic of discussion.
Our immune system has its own processes to rapidly evolve responses to antigen challenges. See, for example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_hypermutation
Because there's you.
These are Easter Sunday numbers. That will be a low only comparable to Xmas Day and Boxing Day I would have thought?
What Major’s biting episodes tell us about White House workplace stress, the need for calm leadership and why dogs don’t dig the furry baby talk.
"What Major is saying [when he bites] is that he doesn’t feel safe yet," expert dog trainer Cesar Millan said. "And if he doesn’t feel safe, he can’t trust. And if he can’t trust, he can’t feel calm."
President Joe Biden just moved in, and already in the neighborhood he’s the guy with … that dog.
Major, a 3-year-old rescue from a Delaware shelter and the younger of the first family’s two German shepherds, has been “agitated” at the White House, jumping, barking and “charging,” according to CNN’s reporting. Back toward the beginning of March, Major bit a Secret Service agent. More recently, he “nipped” a National Park Service employee.
The White House has tried to cast the episodes as mostly no big deal — a case of “a sweet dog,” in the president’s words, merely trying to get used to his new, busy and disorienting digs. “Major was surprised by an unfamiliar person and reacted in a way that resulted in a minor injury,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said following the initial incident. “Major is still adjusting to his new surroundings,” Michael LaRosa, first lady Jill Biden’s press secretary, said in the wake of the sans-injury second.
With the exception of the coverage on cable news, the basic parameters of the storyline are probably uncomfortably familiar to many American dog owners who think of their pets as beloved and blameless members of the family, only to suffer the chagrin of watching them misbehave out in public. Of course, when our pound pup lunges at the Amazon man, we don’t have to attempt to explain it from the podium in the Brady Briefing Room. The Bidens do, though — and all politics aside, the dog training world is not overly impressed with what they’re hearing.
A quartet of celebrity and expert dog trainers I talked to told me the response from the first family misses key points about a serious but eminently solvable situation. Jason Cohen, Larry Krohn, Joel Silverman and Cesar Millan — some of whom have written bestselling books and have starred in hit TV shows — are stationed from New York to California and have varying styles and focuses, ranging from easing dogs’ social anxiety to lessening their aggression. But they all agreed on one overarching thing.
As Millan put it?
“It’s not the dog.”
It’s the place and the people around the dog. . . .
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/05/major-biden-dog-trainers-white-house-479030
So I would be surprised if this seat wasn’t a fairly easy Tory hold.
Please find any actual evidence since the rise of BTL cash buyers that give a significant correlation between interest rates and property prices.
When it was just people buying with mortgages their own home then it was true, but BTL broke the link. If people can't buy with their own mortgage they need to rent instead, meaning higher rents, more profit from BTL, so more BTL demand.
If rates goin up you won't see prices go down, you'll see the share of FTBs go down as BTL step in to keep prices high as profits will be there.
Tories see more home ownership, Labour less home ownership.