Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
TheCountOfNowhere

General Election Prediction Poll

What do you think the outcome of the election will be?  

269 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think the outcome of the election will be:

    • Labour Win
      32
    • Tory Win
      154
    • Hung Parliament
      83


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, maverick73 said:

That was just an emotional rambling. Over life times voting changes based on what's being offered. I stopped voting in 1997 after the Conservative party lost to the man in a red time, with a rightwing blue hart. If any wants to win am election they should promise to do the equivalent of building a wall... maybe by raising interest rates, wiping out student debts with left over QE money... ban foreign ownership of housing, that's what wins votes. Something that makes them feel British again.

If such debts are going to be wiped away, then there needs to be a corresponding really big £ payments to all those who decided against going to University because of concern about racking up so much debt, and maybe likely to earn less over their lifetime.

3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Millionaire property developer Alan Sugar contends that Corbyn voters 'didn't know what they voted for'.

Lord Sugar tells apprentice winner to invest in property if he wants to be wealthy in business.

Business a hobby vs mad-gainz property !

HPC them all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patient London FTB said:

Respect to @TheCountOfNowhere for his prediction. I was among those who thought May would steamroller enough Labour Midlands and Northern seats to get a bigger majority. 

I was wrong, but I'm happy to have been wrong. Good to see young people put up a fight at last and that's the big story for me. 

Reckon that the BTL crew are even more screwed than before now, as renters realise their political power. 

And if I was a foreign investor I would be very nervous - now the politicians realise there are consequences for dumping on the young they might pick on people who have no vote at all. 

The Tories have been retoxified as one of them said today. Being propped up by the DUP looks awful and the infighting is going to be epic. Boris doesn't seem like the solution as he has no credibility with Remainers. 

Stasis from now until the Tories get kicked out - but the negative of that is the big housebuilding programme we need (in addition to price correction) will take longer to happen. 

As ever, I won't be surprised if I'm completely wrong on those predictions. 

 

:)

On everything but big housebuilding programme, with so many older owners rattling around in larger homes, and 2m+ BTLers having claims on so many millions of homes.  Then all the Consent-To-Let properties.

Up until recently we've not been building homes fast enough for BTLers to buy them to rent out, and for property investors to speculate on them, and flip them, at ever higher prices.   And where have all the smaller house builders gone?   More financialisation, with so many same-as house design crapness.

Demand feeds demand.... 

In fact ,way back to 2000.

Quote

 

Britain becomes a nation of renters as buy to let prices out new buyers

January 1 2015,

The Times
 

....Departmental figures show that the vast majority of new housing in the UK since the turn of the millennium has been bought by landlords. Between 2000 and 2012, the private rented sector has accounted for some 2.5 million of the extra homes. Only 400,000 have been bought by occupiers.

 

HPCer:   Of 2.9m new homes built since 2000, 2.5m (i.e.86%) bought by landlords, 400k by owner-occupiers as home ownership plunges to lowest since 1988.
 

On 10/14/2015 at 9:14 PM, Pumpkin Muad'Dib said:

;)

Fair cop.

It's actually quite an intriguing correlation and it is stable over a long enough time span, and is stable over the transformation of lending as the building societies are displaced by the banks.

That said, I cannot make any sense of Neal Hudson's decision to place it in his analysis, or how there is any need to "break the 10 to 1 ratio".

He seems to be accepting as an unquestioned premise the idea that prices are high because there is unmet demand for housing, however as we've argued a ton of times, rents are stable and whenever you want to rent you can rent. If you want housing in the South East you can get it. It may not be quite as close to central London as you'd like, but it's there for the taking. Whilst house prices are out of whack with earnings that is not in and of itself evidence that there is unmet demand for housing.

As always with a question that might be considered an economic question there are so many interlinked parts that an observation of a correlation is just another puzzle. I have to say the thing about the graph that surprised me is how 1997-2008 boom transaction volumes were so small compared to 1989 boom transaction volumes.

Worth pointing out that if the millions of homes that had been bought at stupid prices by BTL mugs had been sold at lower prices to owner-occupiers then there wouldn't be so much excitement about a lack of affordable housing, and that if people returned to selling the house they already owned when they a bought new one the transaction volumes would be higher, so if the 10:1 ratio held up you'd have more building, (if the same correlation continued to prevail)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sisyphal said:

Yep, lots in their early 40s will have missed out too.  Very few buying opportunities:

1) Immediately out of Uni (1998 - 2000) was one assuming you got a decent job/settled relationship.  Not many of my peer group did that, early 20s was too young.

2) Dotcom crash/mini recession followed 2001/02 ish.  2003 - 2004 there was still value, even though it didn't feel like it at the time (bubble was already inflating).

3) 2009 thro 2013 was affordable in most parts, but the job market was poor and that's only knowing what we know now about interest rates. Since then we've had 4 years of daft prices again, will need a crash (or a long stagnation) for another buying opportunity.

This sounds like my life, except I would disagree that 2009-2013 was that affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, reddog said:

This sounds like my life, except I would disagree that 2009-2013 was that affordable.

My house buying timing advantage over sysiphal was I graduated in 1996. But even then it took 3 years until I could buy, and that was on the basis of having got into a £50k job, which most people can't even get today.

I am still shocked at the level of graduate salaries in the UK today. Whilst you always hear about the investment banks and big 4 etc pay £40k+,  many grads start on under £20k. That is about what I first on when I graduated in 1996, 21 years ago. Since then house prices have tripled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NuBrit said:

I thought the outcome is actually quite bullish for house prices.

May has a majority (albeit in a coalition), she will now be under pressure to abandon deficit targets, which should mean more borrowing, more spending, more trashing the pound, and ultimately more house price inflation. 

 

don't agree, and neither does the stock market, builders were down heavily on Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Noallegiance said:

A different take:

Without a majority, this DUP arrangement is the next best thing for TM. She's still in charge of Brexit negotiations. She's still the PM.

Labour are not in power.

Only the media put forward the cynicism of the reason for calling the election in the first place.

Many are falling prey to the padding and endless (pointless) pontificate-guessing requirements of the 24 hour news business.

So I think they have strengthen their position in a few areas:

1) Perhaps silenced Scottish calls for independence, esp while Brexit was going on. This was looking to create a lot of noise at home. Sturgeon is in a much weaker position now and is less likely to be throwing her weight around.

2) 2015 manefesto is gone. Not getting a clear mandate on their own manifesto probably gives them some wiggle room as well if they can agree with DUP

Of course they have to deal with the fact they lost seats and lost what looked like an unassailable lead at the beginning. This does make May look precarious, and is likely to embolden more bank bench revolts. Though it may also mean more moderate policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Richmond said:

2) 2015 manefesto is gone. Not getting a clear mandate on their own manifesto probably gives them some wiggle room as well if they can agree with DUP

Without a mandate, nothing can be force through the Lords. This is why the Tories are so angry with May, she has ******ed them. No majority for the commons and no mandate in the Lords.where they are in the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

My house buying timing advantage over sysiphal was I graduated in 1996. But even then it took 3 years until I could buy, and that was on the basis of having got into a £50k job, which most people can't even get today.

I am still shocked at the level of graduate salaries in the UK today. Whilst you always hear about the investment banks and big 4 etc pay £40k+,  many grads start on under £20k. That is about what I first on when I graduated in 1996, 21 years ago. Since then house prices have tripled.

Also the fact many graduate positions dont exist any more, at a time when the system produces more grads than ever.

They also have the spectre of performance hanging over them from day 1. Big accountancy companies deliberately over hire knowing they will get rid of the lower third after year 1.

This is why im unsympathetic to older people who say "ive worked hard all my life now its time for young people to support me". The work isnt out there for them to support you. And its economically impossible to sustain a system in which people are retired for 40 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Sinn Fein's policy of not taking their seats is looking pretty self-defeating. If Sinn Fein were in Westminster it would make the Conservative-DUP alliance much less stable by bringing that majority down to 6. A couple of by-elections and some Tory party discipline problems later, down comes the Government. By staying at home Sinn Fein are allowing the DUP to run Northern Ireland from Westminster until 2022.

 

Something they have never done since their earliest forays into the democratic purpose and the election of Bobby Sands.

 

As Irish republicans, they choose never to sit in the British Parliament. Happy to take the expenses though which go with it. No one makes a fuss and they quietly get on with the free money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, willie said:

Labour just took Kensington by 20 votes

 

 

The boundary was changed before the 2010election and Chelsea farmed off to nearby affluent boroughs which clearly stayed Tory.

 

Kensington these days is a lot of Peabody and other council estates mixed in with much fewer affluent areas. No great surprise it went Labour (particularly with the swings we saw) if you follow the history and know the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn's elation is similar to a third division side playing a cup tie against Chelsea.
Yes, you were 4-0 down, and came back to finish 4-3.

 

But you still lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richmond said:

So I think they have strengthen their position in a few areas:

1) Perhaps silenced Scottish calls for independence, esp while Brexit was going on. This was looking to create a lot of noise at home. Sturgeon is in a much weaker position now and is less likely to be throwing her weight around.

2) 2015 manefesto is gone. Not getting a clear mandate on their own manifesto probably gives them some wiggle room as well if they can agree with DUP

Of course they have to deal with the fact they lost seats and lost what looked like an unassailable lead at the beginning. This does make May look precarious, and is likely to embolden more bank bench revolts. Though it may also mean more moderate policies.

Agreed.

The election was a personal disaster for the reputation of May but it was no where near the triumph for Labour or the calamity for the Tories some of the media are suggesting. Labour are still over 50 seats behind the the Tories and 65 from having an absolute majority in Parliament. Moreover the Tory gains in Scotland offset many of the losses in England which means any idea Corbyn might have had for a Labour SNP coalition were effectively spiked. Indeed, even if it had happened Labour would have struggled to get a lot of legislation through Parliament as  the legal process now excludes Scottish MPs from voting on purely English laws. Corbyn would have had to repeal Cameron's legislation on this point which I think would definely have triggered a constitution am crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33370064

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

Agreed.

The election was a personal disaster for the reputation of May but it was no where near the triumph for Labour or the calamity for the Tories some of the media are suggesting. Labour are still over 50 seats behind the the Tories and 65 from having an absolute majority in Parliament. Moreover the Tory gains in Scotland offset many of the losses in England which means any idea Corbyn might have had for a Labour SNP coalition were effectively spiked. Indeed, even if it had happened Labour would have struggled to get a lot of legislation through Parliament as  the legal process now excludes Scottish MPs from voting on purely English laws. Corbyn would have had to repeal Cameron's legislation on this point which I think would definely have triggered a constitution am crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33370064

 

Everyone forgets that for Labour to have any chance in forming a Government will need significant gains in Scotland. Otherwise, the numbers just won't stack up.

 

The Tories seem to have reversed their fortunes in Scotland and are making progress but Labour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I didn't realise was just how much of the vote May got - 44%, which are Thatcherite levels.

But so did Corbyn. Unprecedented for the losing party. How did he do it? He had a cunning plan.

What every party is looking for is a large, untapped voter pond. Corbyn found it. The yoof.

Young people have become increasingly disenfranchised (as we know on here only too well) but are traditionally apathetic - they couldn't see the relationship between voting & their daily lives. Jezza - or his advisors - reasoned that if they could use their activists to finally persuade them to engage, by using things they understood (social media, celebrity) & promised them loads of free stuff, they could get a result. And they have done, in spades.

Plus Jeremy is a good campaigner. particularly when you put him in front of uniformly adoring crowds, Trump style. May is, er, rubbish at, er,spontaneous rabble raising. Then she went & dissed her core vote with assaults on pensioners' comfy privileges.

As ever, politicians buy votes. The result had naff all to do with socilaist idealism; Corbyn just made the right offer to the right people. May didn't.

That's how democracy works.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, geezer466 said:

Everyone forgets that for Labour to have any chance in forming a Government will need significant gains in Scotland. Otherwise, the numbers just won't stack up.

 

The Tories seem to have reversed their fortunes in Scotland and are making progress but Labour?

Yep, very important point, this may be peak labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

 

What I didn't realise was just how much of the vote May got - 44%, which are Thatcherite levels.

But so did Corbyn. Unprecedented for the losing party. How did he do it? He had a cunning plan.

What every party is looking for is a large, untapped voter pond. Corbyn found it. The yoof.

Young people have become increasingly disenfranchised (as we know on here only too well) but are traditionally apathetic - they couldn't see the relationship between voting & their daily lives. Jezza - or his advisors - reasoned that if they could use their activists to finally persuade them to engage, by using things they understood (social media, celebrity) & promised them loads of free stuff, they could get a result. And they have done, in spades.

Plus Jeremy is a good campaigner. particularly when you put him in front of uniformly adoring crowds, Trump style. May is, er, rubbish at, er,spontaneous rabble raising. Then she went & dissed her core vote with assaults on pensioners' comfy privileges.

As ever, politicians buy votes. The result had naff all to do with socilaist idealism; Corbyn just made the right offer to the right people. May didn't.

That's how democracy works.

 

I think Corbyn got the result he wanted. He won seats in England Scotland and Wales while getting a bigger share of the popular vote than Blair in 2005, Brown in 2010 and Miliband in 2015 which was a good enough result to cement his leadership of the Labour party but without the threat of actually having to govern which is the area I suspect he is most wanting in ability. He also humiliated May and has reduced her mandate to legislate on many issues. It is now going to be even harder for the Nu Lab crowd (who ironically introduced the current system of student tuition fees and loans many youngsters were voting against on Thursday in the first place) to unseat him without rendering the Labour party asunder.

The good news for the Tories is that as they are now a minority government they can ditch whatever crappy bits of their manifesto they want since the result means they have no real mandate for it. Rather surprisingly May has a clean slate to operate on almost every issue apart from the Brexit where the referendum result still looms over British politics. Even there I think she probably has more room to manoeuvre now than if she had won a big majority. That said I don't doubt the many idiots that exist in Conservative central office and amongst the ranks of Tory MPs are even now looking at ways to bugger it all up

The big losers on Thursday were the SNP whose political MO was to use the stick of IndyRef2 and the carrot of votes at Westminster to screw money out of English taxpayers to fund their rule of Scotland.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Venger said:

 

:)

On everything but big housebuilding programme, with so many older owners rattling around in larger homes, and 2m+ BTLers having claims on so many millions of homes.  Then all the Consent-To-Let properties.

Up until recently we've not been building homes fast enough for BTLers to buy them to rent out, and for property investors to speculate on them, and flip them, at ever higher prices.   And where have all the smaller house builders gone?   More financialisation, with so many same-as house design crapness.

Demand feeds demand.... 

In fact ,way back to 2000.

HPCer:   Of 2.9m new homes built since 2000, 2.5m (i.e.86%) bought by landlords, 400k by owner-occupiers as home ownership plunges to lowest since 1988.
 

 

I know one of the HPC splits is on whether we actually need a loads more housebuilding. We really do in London at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, geezer466 said:

Corbyn's elation is similar to a third division side playing a cup tie against Chelsea.
Yes, you were 4-0 down, and came back to finish 4-3.

But you still lost.

 

Was thinking about football against all the hype of Conservatives cruising to big winz, and taking loads more seats (and being lectured about their mad-gainz in April, scoffed at risks of positions unravelling, and the possibility of bruising result and perhaps heads taken........ May has a difficult time ahead imo).

The one-and-only person able to negotiate, stable-and-secure leader....

It winds the British up a bit.   I remember Kenyon's words winding me and others up against Chelsea, hoping they would be tested.

Quote

 

Punters losing interest in Kenyon's 'one-horse race'
Tuesday 23 August 2005

Malcolm Clarke directly correlates the slow sales with Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon's pre-season claim that "the winner of the title will come from a small bunch of one".

....How many racehorse punters want to go and watch a one-horse race. Maybe Mr Kenyon should be asked why fans should pay £48 to watch a one-horse race."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patient London FTB said:

I know one of the HPC splits is on whether we actually need a loads more housebuilding. We really do in London at least. 

Not claiming to fully know what we need on housebuilding, but know a girl in Cheshire with parents who rent out a flat in London, and said to have many others in their BTL portfolio in Cheshire area.    Just find it hard to get into the 'more houses' argument, when so many millions of houses laid claim to by the BTLers/LLs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, adarmo said:

This is a mechanism for increasing wages. Your assertion was that there was none. 

It is not. If by track you mean move toe in step then I am inclined to agree. It's also not the 20th century anymore (I got a calendar) but here you are https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/november/relationship-between-wage-growth-inflation American but looks like correlation.

That scatter plot has flummoxed me because I had heard that wage rises are generally slightly higher than inflation. The data at the link above seems to show a crossover at 5.5% inflation, above which employees start becoming distinctly poorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geezer466 said:

Something they have never done since their earliest forays into the democratic purpose and the election of Bobby Sands.

 

As Irish republicans, they choose never to sit in the British Parliament. Happy to take the expenses though which go with it. No one makes a fuss and they quietly get on with the free money

Bobby Sands wasn't a Sinn Fein MP. He stood as an anti H Block candidate.

 

Sinn Fein's first foray into the democratic process was much earlier. A 1917 by election victory in North Roscommon.

Edited by skrillex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, frederico said:

Yep, very important point, this may be peak labour.

In Scotland there are seats where large SNP majorities from 2015 over Labour were down to SNP holds with majorities under 100 (Glasgow SW, Glasgow E) and many more SNP/Lab contests where the SNP held on this week are now marginal. Similar stories where C or LD were/are challengers to the SNP.

So in Scotland, Labour (as with the other "unionist" parties) must fancy their chances of more gains at the next GE.

But even if Labour in Scotland did well in their new targets in a future GE and held their gains made this week, it wouldn't be nearly enough to get them over the line at Westminster.

Do you think this week's election could have been peak labour in England (and/or Wales)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

This is why im unsympathetic to older people who say "ive worked hard all my life now its time for young people to support me". The work isnt out there for them to support you. And its economically impossible to sustain a system in which people are retired for 40 years.

This is the bit I don't really get (well I do but it just usually leads towards my usual tones of contempt). What's the ****** point in all the "efficiency" and "productivity" and automation that's gone on in the last many decades, and looks set to continue, if it doesn't mean you can support a population with a smaller proportion working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

How long do we think before Mother Theresa is forced to resign? :D

1. 6 days

2. 6 weeks

3. 6 months

Maybe when the fat lady sings ?

Iools like triple lock pensions will be hear for longer... hopefully a nice large dose of inflation to go with it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 399 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.