Sending Questions On Housing And The Economy To Andrew Neils’ Debates

[Concrete Jungle]

Do any of the prospective chancellors have a believable plan for reducing the deficit and bringing the spiraling national debt and interest payments under control? A plan that doesn't include the hilariously optimistic figures for growth Mr Darling insulted us with in his budget and real spending cuts rather than the paltry £6 billion you have squabbled over thus far?

[Tired of Waiting]

Do any of the prospective chancellors have a believable plan for reducing the deficit and bringing the spiraling national debt and interest payments under control? A plan that doesn't include the hilariously optimistic figures for growth Mr Darling insulted us with in his budget and real spending cuts rather than the paltry £6 billion you have squabbled over thus far?

I am pretty sure Andrew Neil will go for the national debt and annual government deficit. I think we should concentrate on housing issues, as this issue is usually ignored by the media.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Concrete Jungle]

Do any of the prospective chancellors have a believable plan for reducing the deficit and bringing the spiraling national debt and interest payments under control? A plan that doesn't include the hilariously optimistic figures for growth Mr Darling insulted us with in his budget and real spending cuts rather than the paltry £6 billion you have squabbled over thus far?

I am pretty sure Andrew Neil will go for the national debt and annual government deficit. I think we should concentrate on housing issues, as this issue is usually ignored by the media.

One way of tackling the deficit / debt would be to remove some or all of the props currently being used to hold up the housing market? Shared equity scams, government loans to buy unaffordable housing, housing benefit payments, paying the interest on the mortgages of the feckless?

[Tired of Waiting]

One way of tackling the deficit / debt would be to remove some or all of the props currently being used to hold up the housing market? Shared equity scams, government loans to buy unaffordable housing, housing benefit payments, paying the interest on the mortgages of the feckless?

Yes, these are all very good points. Many of us are tax-payers, renting privately, and our money is being used to help others buy their houses.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

Do any of the prospective chancellors have a believable plan for reducing the deficit and bringing the spiraling national debt and interest payments under control? A plan that doesn't include the hilariously optimistic figures for growth Mr Darling insulted us with in his budget and real spending cuts rather than the paltry £6 billion you have squabbled over thus far?

One way of tackling the deficit / debt would be to remove some or all of the props currently being used to hold up the housing market? Shared equity scams, government loans to buy unaffordable housing, housing benefit payments, paying the interest on the mortgages of the feckless?

OK, re. deficit debt, perhaps we could send something like this:

"Many people are confusing deficit and debt. Why aren't you explaining the difference? It is not difficult."

[LeeT]

How about

'I'm considering buying a house, but unsure about the effect the outcome of the election will have. Under each of your parties policies would I be better to wait for a significant downward correction in house prices before buying or wait until near double digit inflation looks set to erode the true value of my mortgage? Also, would you help me with my mortgage costs as Labour do at present should I lose my job when unemployment takes off?'

[Tired of Waiting]

How about

'I'm considering buying a house, but unsure about the effect the outcome of the election will have. Under each of your parties policies would I be better to wait for a significant downward correction in house prices before buying or wait until near double digit inflation looks set to erode the true value of my mortgage? Also, would you help me with my mortgage costs as Labour do at present should I lose my job when unemployment takes off?'

Brilliant.

Send it in, please!

[pete.hpc]

Well, for what it's worth I've sent the following. Seems pointless really, housing hasn't been mentioned at all in this campaign so far, and there doesn't appear to be a debate on domestic issues for question two, although there is one on foreign affairs and the environment

FOR CHANCELLORS DEBATE BBC2 WEDNESDAY 21ST APRIL

House prices are unaffordable for most by all accepted methods of measurement, hence the need for shared ownership schemes, for example. Labour have decided to try and fix prices at this unaffordable level by forcing the banks to lend at 2007 levels. What will you do to either allow house prices to fall to affordable levels, or support them at their current unaffordable high levels?

The current Labour government are keen for many young people to rent long term as evidenced by their attempts to keep house prices at the current unaffordable level, this is often referred to as being in line with attitudes to renting on the continent. Will you therefore introduce rental contract terms more in line with those in France and Germany which make renting more attractive in those countries where tenants can expect guarunteed longer contracts with more freedom to make the property their own during their stay?

[Tired of Waiting]

Well, for what it's worth I've sent the following. Seems pointless really, housing hasn't been mentioned at all in this campaign so far, and there doesn't appear to be a debate on domestic issues for question two, although there is one on foreign affairs and the environment

Good one.

"Well, for what it's worth (...)"

Yes, we don't know if they will use our questions on House Prices. My hope is that the BBC, or Andrew Neil's staff, will ask a question if many members of the public are asking about it.

Lets see tomorrow, Wednesday, in the "CHANCELLORS DEBATE".

By the way, the NIMBYs always use environmental excuses to oppose planing - "protect the green-belt", "green-fields", "green and pleasant land", etc.

I think we must send many questions for the ENVIRONMENT DEBATE as well. After all, an acre can keep one cow, or house 10 families. Which one is our priority?! :angry: But I think we should send these questions only after the CHANCELLORS DEBATE.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

OK, I've just sent a question on my favourite topic. ( I signed Mr. T Wading )

_____________________________________________________________

Question for the Chancellor’s Debate:

Mervyn King, told a House of Lords Economics Committee that he opposed the then Chancellor Gordon Brown’s change of inflation indexes in December of 2003. We know now that that change kept interest rates too low for too long, fuelling the bubble in credit/debt, and assets, including houses.

Were you in favour of that change then?

_____________________________________________________________

Then I included the link to that Committee's report, and pasted the questions I mentioned.

" Link to Lords Committee:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeconaf/101/9032403.htm

See questions 481 to 487

Q481 Chairman: Would you also want to look at the CPI as a measure of inflation, given that it does not include the effect of house prices?

Mr King: When we switched from RPIX to CPIX I expressed some reservations about the move on the grounds that, although CPI has many advantages over RPIX, it has one very big disadvantage which is that RPIX includes house prices and CPI does not. I expressed some concern about the move at that point. I would like to see us have a price index which does include house prices; I have made no bones about that but we are where we are and it does not make sense to chop and change the target too often.

Q482 Baroness Kingsmill: It would appear that the use of interest rates is not for controlling inflation alone; it is not an adequate basis for the Bank’s ongoing role. I would highlight the fact that the inflation target seems to have resulted in too low interest rates which have created excessive mortgage debt and a house price bubble. Furthermore, (…)

-------------------

(((Note: Then Baroness Kingsmill adds two other topics in her question, Mervyn King replies only to the second part of Baroness’ question, and ignores the part about “too low interest rates which have created excessive mortgage debt and a house price bubble.” But thankfully Lord Forsyth returns to interest rates, and gets Brown’s role out. See below.)))

-------------------

Q486 Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I just wanted to pick up on the question which the Chairman raised to which you gave a very complicated answer in terms of international aspects of it. The evidence we have had, and certainly the report points to it, is that you were setting interest rates looking at a very narrow measure of inflation whilst house prices were going through the roof and other asset classes were going through the roof. I understand the point that if you put up interest rates you might not have met your narrow definition of inflation target and it might have meant that there were fewer building workers employed building flats which turned out subsequently to be almost worthless. But is there not merit in the argument which says that part of the problem has been holding interest rates down too low, so people went out and borrowed and bid up the price of assets like houses? Now, as a result, we are having to pay the price with very high unemployment which is going to go over three million. Did we not actually try to play the game of golf with one tool to the very considerable disadvantage of people in this country, which had nothing whatever to do with international factors but was entirely a result of the way we chose to handle our monetary policy?

Mr King: No. I certainly accept that we did go into this with only one instrument for the Bank of England, which was the bank rate, and that in itself was not sufficient to guarantee stability. I totally accept that; the point I made to the Chairman. However, we do work and live in an international capital market. Rightly or wrongly we have abolished capital controls and the level of long-term interest rates in our economy is determined in the world capital market and what happened with a very large expansion of the volume of savings in Asia was that world real interest rates were bid down to very low levels. Those are the interest rates which determine asset prices and that is why all asset prices went up, not just here but in other countries too. That is something which no one country had much control over and that is why we do need some action at the international level.

Q487 Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: But if you had had housing in the measure of the increase in inflation and you had set interest rates to take account of the increase in house prices, then people would have been less able to borrow to the extent that they have and there would have been less pressure on house prices.

Mr King: Certainly in the last two or three years, before the crisis began in 2007, it is fair to say that the change of the target probably made it more difficult for us to achieve that balance. After all, our job is to follow the remit given to us by Parliament. It is not our job to say we do not care if Parliament have made a mistake, we will do something else. There is a system which gives us a very clear remit and our job is to follow that. I have said before that I think it would have been preferable had we stayed with an index in which house prices were still included. I have said that several times before.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[europbaron]

Explain the difference between deficit and debt

I'd like to suggest the following revision to this as a potential question.

"We have heard a lot about reducing the deficit, but nobody is addressing the matter of our national debt. Please outline the plans you have to repay the national debt."

[Tired of Waiting]

I'd like to suggest the following revision to this as a potential question.

"We have heard a lot about reducing the deficit, but nobody is addressing the matter of our national debt. Please outline the plans you have to repay the national debt."

Yes, you can try it. It would be interesting to see them trying to reply to it.

I hope the candidates are asked at least one question on house prices.

The CHANCELLORS DEBATE is tomorrow, Wednesday. We should send questions soon.

The BBC link to send questions is in the Opening Post, above.

[Tired of Waiting]

Thankyou for that quote TOW.

The bit in bold is of interest to me - and RK too.

The big picture is globalisation and the lack of capital controls - I feel from that quote that Mervyn King belives this too.

I don't doubt the subsequent (deliberate) policy mistake by that nasty f*ckwit Brown that exacerbated the matter to make things here worse than anywhere else on earth in terms of deterioration.

Yes, some bubble would've happened anyway, but without Brown's tampering with the index, interest rates would probably have been around 1% higher from 2004-08, and the prices peak probably 10-20% lower.

This would mean much lower systemic risks, and much lower social pain in the (smaller) correction.

A car crash at 40mph is MUCH more painful than one at 30mph.

[Ologhai Jones]

Yes, you can try it. It would be interesting to see them trying to reply to it.

I hope the candidates are asked at least one question on house prices.

The CHANCELLORS DEBATE is tomorrow, Wednesday. We should send questions soon.

The BBC link to send questions is in the Opening Post, above.

I've been watching the DP Election Debates, but they don't appear to be asking questions from the public particularly. I think I've only been aware of them asking two such questions.

[Tired of Waiting]

I've been watching the DP Election Debates, but they don't appear to be asking questions from the public particularly. I think I've only been aware of them asking two such questions.

Yes, I had the same impression. But then they asked a question very hostile to ring-fencing foreign aid, and it appeared to me that the BBC was reflecting public opinion on it - as I know that Andrew Neil is in favour of this ring-fencing. It is possible that they ask questions on areas where they feel there is public interest, based on the questions the public sent them. They do a similar thing on the Daily Politics. There is some hope, I think/hope... Oh well. It is worth a try, I reckon.

[Tired of Waiting]

The Chancellor’s Debate will start now, 2:15, on BBC 2, with Andrew Neil and Stephanie Flanders.

[billybong]

At least Vince Cable is expressing some firm opinions. It's not much but the other two are still stuck on the £6 billion.

[shindigger]

At least Vince Cable is expressing some firm opinions. It's not much but the other two are still stuck on the £6 billion.

Vince has been shredded. Brillo is an economist. Its been brutal.

[billybong]

Darling calling his opponents arguments "flaky" and "incredible". The cheek of it.

[billybong]

.

Edited April 21, 2010 by billybong

[billybong]

Vince has been shredded. Brillo is an economist. Its been brutal.

O'Neil did have a go at Cable because at least Cable expressed some opinions the other two were just wiffle waffle. Brillo did point out some of Cable's contradictions, they all have them but any blows landed on any of them were the pillow fight feathers all over the place variety as usual.

Edited April 21, 2010 by billybong

[shindigger]

O'Neil did have a go at Cable because at least Cable expressed some opinions the other two were just wiffle waffle. Brillo did point out some of Cable's contradictions, they all have them but any blows landed on any of them were the pillow fight feathers all over the place variety as usual.

I've been an admirer of Cable to a point, but Osborne won that hands down.

Cable got it from every angle and he fluffed and spluttered badly.

[Ologhai Jones]

Darling calling his opponents arguments "flaky" and "incredible". The cheek of it.

I think, on balance, Darling would've been better off describing Osborne's policies as 'not credible' rather than 'incredible'...

[billybong]

I've been an admirer of Cable to a point, but Osborne won that hands down.

Cable got it from every angle and he fluffed and spluttered badly.

It's opinions but I would say in order:

1. LibDem - gave some figures and opinions on the economy and at least some food for thought. Trying to be reasonably straightforward but fair to say caught out a lot but came over relatively honest.

2. Tory - waffle and blather and more or less stuck on the £6 billion and unable to be straightforward. Caught out all the time.

3. NuLabour - wiffle waffle blither and blather and more or less stuck on the Tories £6 billion, nothing new to offer and endemically unable to be straightforward. Caught out all the time.

I don't think any of them are worth voting for and Brillo did touch on each of the parties "contradictions" a few times but it would be great if there were to be a sudden integrity transformation event to happen in any of the main parties. I'm not holding on for it.

Edited April 21, 2010 by billybong

[Tired of Waiting]

Vince has been shredded. Brillo is an economist. Its been brutal.

Indeed.

I've just watched now (7pm, from the PVR, as I had to work in the afternoon), and I am really very disappointed that they did not ask any questions about the bubble. Unbelievable.

Only Vince Cable, at the end, when pressed by Flanders on what had he proposed to avoid the bubble, Vince said he had been against removing housing costs from the inflation index. That was all. :angry: I know it was the main cause of the bubble (see my sig., etc.) but it was too brief.