BrianTrousers

Surely it is just a mathematical illusion. The headline figure is the average price of houses sold. This is only a useful indicator if the houses being sold remain pretty much the same. If the type of houses sold changes then the average is no longer a reliable indicator. For example, if the poor were hit harder by the recession than the wealthy (crazy talk I know but bear with me) and sales of cheap houses dried up it would give the impression of a rise in house prices. The most reliable figures are those showing market volume (total sales, total spend) and these are very much down.

Tempting though it sounds, the law of unintended consequences tells us that sellers would probably focus on the numbers of bidders doubling and end up hardening their position.

Yep. Doing my bit by making insultingly low offers in Swansea West. Pretty sure we've been robbed of the jackpot though, and am just trying to minimise my exposure to future risk.

Remember, poor grammar is always a sign of an invalid argument.

Just how old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Have you retained a youthful turn of phrase or are you just wise beyond your years?

I voted Labour. It was the only sensible option at the time, but still a risk. Sadly the risk did not pay off. I am a cynic and believed they would fall short of our expectations, but I have been surprised at how completely they have failed to realise their rhetoric. Growing up in South Wales I was incapable, on principle, of voting Conservative (I am sorry Lady Thatcher, but the end does not justify the means). Faced with little option I clung onto the faint hope that the opposition could not be as bad. That hope was already in very poor health when the Iraq fiasco finally killed it. Now I will vote only on one issue, and that is the prospect of electoral reform.