Ipsos MORI released their monthly political monitor yesterday, topline voting intention numbers are CON 37%, LAB 31%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9%. These are on the basis of some minor interim changes to methodology (in this case adding how habitually people vote to the turnout model) while the inquiry continues longer term solutions are worked upon. Tabs are here. MORI also asked a question about whether people thought the four Labour leadership candidates had what it took to be a good Prime Minister. Andy Burnham had the best score (or the least worst) – 27% of people thought he did, 27% disagreed. In comparison 22% thought Yvette Cooper did, 16% Liz Kendall and 17% Jeremy Corbyn.

YouGov also published the rest of their poll of Labour party members, conducted for the Times. Tables for part one of the research are here, part two here. The second wave included a question on why party members are voting as they are, showing the contrast between what is driving Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and Corbyn voters. Burnham supporters say they are backing him because he has the best chance of winning, will unite the party and will be the best opposition to the Conservatives. The answers from Cooper supporters are similar, though there is less emphasis on party unity. For Kendall supporters the key reason to back her is seen as having the best change of winning, followed by the being the strongest opposition – 31% of her supporters say they are backing her as a break from Ed Miliband’s party, and only 10% see her as a unifier. The drivers for supporters of Jeremy Corbyn contrast sharply with the other three – only 5% of his supporters say they are backing him as the candidate who has the best chance of winning in 2020, only 5% are backing him as a unifier, the reasons are overwhelmingly because they think he has the best policies and because they think he is a break from New Labour.


517 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 37, LAB 31, LDEM 10, UKIP 9”

1 2 3 4 5 11
  1. “Timeline: Credit crunch to downturn”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7521250.stm

    “WARNING SIGNS
    April 2007
    New Century Financial, which specialises in sub-prime mortgages, files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and cuts half of its workforce.

    As it sold on many of its debts to other banks, the collapse in the sub-prime market begins to have an impact at banks around the world.

    July
    Investment bank Bear Stearns tells investors they will get little, if any, of the money invested in two of its hedge funds after rival banks refuse to help it bail them out.

    Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke follows the news with a warning that the US sub-prime crisis could cost up to $100bn (£50bn).

    THE SCALE OF THE CRISIS EMERGES
    9 August 2007
    BNP’s statement is scary, to put it mildly

    9 August
    BNP Paribas’ statement

    Investment bank BNP Paribas tells investors they will not be able to take money out of two of its funds because it cannot value the assets in them, owing to a “complete evaporation of liquidity” in the market.

    It is the clearest sign yet that banks are refusing to do business with each other.

    The European Central Bank pumps 95bn euros (£63bn) into the banking market to try to improve liquidity . It adds a further 108.7bn euros over the next few days.

    The US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada and the Bank of Japan also begin to intervene.

    17 August
    The Fed cuts the rate at which it lends to banks by half of a percentage point to 5.75%, warning the credit crunch could be a risk to economic growth.

    A RUN ON A BANK

    4 September
    The rate at which banks lend to each other rises to its highest level since December 1998.

    The so-called Libor rate is 6.7975%, way above the Bank of England’s 5.75% base rate; banks either worry whether other banks will survive, or urgently need the money themselves.
    13 September

    The fact that it has had to go cap in hand to the Bank is the most tangible sign that the crisis in financial markets is spilling over into businesses that touch most of our lives

    The BBC reveals Northern Rock has asked for and been granted emergency financial support from the Bank of England, in the latter’s role as lender of last resort.

    Northern Rock relied heavily on the markets, rather than savers’ deposits, to fund its mortgage lending. The onset of the credit crunch has dried up its funding.”

  2. @Colin

    Even the report you cite, attributes impairments to the Crunch, if you quote them in full!!

    “The significant impact of the financial crisis on retained profits is clear,
    falling from £7bn in 2007 to a £39bn loss in 2008. For the most part this was driven by a large trading loss in the year and increased impairment charges against bad and doubtful debts.”

  3. LOL at all the people popping up to say they predicted everything that happened.

    Did any of you predict it at the time of the 2005 election. Picking up warning signs just before an event is one thing – predicting something three, four or five years out is another.

    Carfrew – “Just because LizH, or anyone, cannot specify exactly when summat will happen, or if indeed it will happen, does not mean that something hasn’t upped the risk of it happening.”

    All “pre-emptive” regulation relies on predictive powers. Because you sure arn’t using empirical evidence. How can you tell whether a new innovation or technology will have technology unless you have seen it work in real life?

    “For example, if smoking ups the chance of cancer, you might nonetheless, for example, be unable to say for certain when someone might contract cancer or summat, or even if they will. Still, it might be advisable to cease smoking…”

    That’s a pathetic example, because we already have empirical evidence, dating back a century that smoking affects mortality.

    So it’s easy for you to pretend you are using predictive powers when you are actually using empirical evidence. Same goes with the “walking out into a busy street” example. We know it’s dangerous, because there is already empirical evidence that it is dangerous.

    How would you use your woo-woo powers to predict the behaviour of something completely new, for which we haven’t got empirical evidence?

    For example, bitcoin. Tell us, oh soothsayer, how this is going to affect the world of currencies and central banking, or whether it will have no effect. Will it affect banking, will it wrest control of the economy away from govt? Or will it be a damp squib.

    Give the prediction your best shot!

  4. That should say “How can you tell whether a new innovation or technology will have an effect unless you have seen it work in real life?”

  5. CARFREW

    @” it would not be impairments causing the crisis, but the crisis causing impairments.”

    Of course-but the risk attached to those loans was too high to withstand the stress.

    It still is in some instances :-

    http://costarfinance.com/2014/12/16/boe-stress-tests-uk-banks-exposed-to-8-7bn-cre-impairment-charge-under-stress-tests-although-loan-books-are-markedly-improved/

    @” it was the freezing of the banks lending to each other that caused the Crunch, ”

    Indeed -I think I said so ! :-)

    But of course you have to ask why liquidity collapsed in such a drastic fashion then, that State Bailouts were required. In the case of Northern Rock-a former Building Society-its empire building directors funded their expansion with wholesale finance-short term capital borrowed in the market. Using such a model to finance rapid expansion of medium/long term lending was crazy-where were the Bank regulators ?

    RBS had significant exposure to he US mortgage backed securities. Remember that in April 2008 it announced a write-down of £5.9bn before tax, following its exposure to the credit markets & asked shareholders for an extra £12bn to shore up its finances..

  6. For those who predicted the Financial Crunch – did you take action based on your predictions?

    Did you say, there’s going to be a massive crash, so I’d better build a cash fund so I can then take advantage of the situation and buy Google shares cheap (the Google price dipped to a low of about $250 – it’s now over $600)

    Or did you say, there is going to be a housing crash, I’d better sell my house in 2007 at the top of the market, and then buy back in 2009, cheap.

    Or was your “prediction” simply a stray thought while in the shower, along with stray thoughts saying the exact opposite, and you did nothing, because in reality there was no prediction, it’s all hindsight stuff?

  7. @Candy

    We already had evidence that if you allow investment banking access to retail, then the former can hammer the latter. That’s why we put barriers up in the first place.

    But you are dodging the point. You were complaining about the inability to giv e a specific prediction of if and when summat is going to happen.

    I was pointing out, that you don’t need to be able to predict exactly when, to be concerned, to note the risk. There is empirical evidence concerning smoking, yes, but under your reasoning you would have dismissed it, because can’t necessarily predict if and precisely when cancer will strike.

    In other words, according to your reasoning, even empirical evidence of a risk might be insufficient. But if you wanna change it now, that’s OK…

  8. After Corbyn becomes Labour leader & gets his first policy platform published, the Opinion Polls are going to give him a spectacular lead if this is correct:-

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html

    Seems like irrefutable evidence-vote JC .

  9. @Candy

    “For those who predicted the Financial Crunch – did you take action based on your predictions?”

    ———-

    Well I didn’t predict the Crunch, but took action anyway, because there is usually a reversal following a boom.

    I mean, you know there’s a possible chance of a banking crash, but a more typical recession is likely anyway, so act on that basis.

    The trigger for me to start acting, was autumn 2005, when banks started tightening up on credit cards…

  10. Carfrew – “There is empirical evidence concerning smoking, yes, but under your reasoning you would have dismissed it, because can’t necessarily predict if and precisely when cancer will strike.”

    Nope, read my previous posts. I was talking about new innovations and new technology.

    How would a regulator have known that CDOs were a problem, given that they’d never been used before and hence there was no empirical evidence as to how they’d have behaved.

    And my other point stands – it’s likely none of you even risked £1000 to back your predictions of impending financial crash, yet are annoyed that the govt of the day didn’t risk billions in advance.

    There was one American fund manager who bet that a crash would come, started taking money out of stocks in 2005, got sacked in 2007 for “returns that deviated from the norm”, and his successor then piled back in… As @The Monk said, any govt that tried the same thing would also have been sacked.

    Warren Buffet didn’t predict the crash, and neither George Soros (Soros actually bought into Lehman brothers in 2007 – a year before it flamed out).

    It’s very easy for armchair commentators to claim that they would have done something different with hindsight, but when you are actually having to put money on the table, it’s different.

  11. An interesting and even handed piece from Jonathan Freedland on the Graun about Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal and how non-Corbynites have been getting the way to tackle it wrong.

    Worth looking up, though I can’t link it here.

  12. @ Mr. Nameless,

    It’s here.

    Unfortunately no one has come up with a strategy for winning them over that does work. I’ve been going with “refute their false claims politely on social media and hope to convince the lurkers” but there’s no reason to believe that’s getting us anywhere.

    We really just need to get more of our people to sign up and outvote them, but if the moderates had any organisational capacity whatsoever we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place.

  13. @ Candy

    There are some (I’m sure false) rumours that Lehman wasn’t bailed out because of the large employee share ownership.

    In any case they were fined in 2004 for taking the regulations on asset based mortgages a bit light heartedly. So it was known (just as in the dot com” – banks started to implement differential interest rates by about 1996-97).

    In reality, banks had to take huge risk to recuperate the losses when the money was almost free and they had been forced to take on obviously non-performing loans from the recession of 2001.

  14. Candy- I doubt anyone foresaw the extent and scope of the crash but that the early noughties boom was unsustainable was postulated by many and it certainly affected some decisions I took.

    I won’t bore you with too many examples as it will seem rather smart-arse but when we sold our home in December 2006 it seem likely that the housing market was nearing its’ peak so we decided to rent; doing so for 17 months with the interest on the equity paying the rent.

    We bought when the market had started to come down in April 2008 from a seller who cut their price as they expected further drops – we may have got up 5% more off a similar priced property if we had waited longer but we liked the house.

    Then it was obvious (yes Obvious) to me that interest rates would have to go low and that Banks would need to widen their spread to re-capitalise.
    despite Financial advisers urging a discount mortgage I took a base rate tracker (0.5%) above and put as much as we could in to ISA’s at 4% or higher for 4 years in to 2010.

    Now I got lucky with rates dropping to 0.5% for so long bringing me real returns on savings funded through the mortgage and very low mortgage payments to make.
    However, I can justifiably claim to have read in the broadest sense the likely trends from 2006/8 onwards and to have benefited.

    If I can then more qualified Economists and Politicians should have been able to and I do wonder why Eddie George’s reputation, for example, is not in tatters for not predicting at least in part.

  15. @Candy, Re: IRA vs AlQ, I don’t think any intelligence agency was in doubt at the turn of the millenium which was the larger threat. No-one is suggesting psychic powers except you, I think this discussion might be getting a bit far out & heated.

  16. Candy

    I did not see it in 2005 as I had no reason to pay attention at that time. I was 25 at the time and too busy clubbing and what have you.

    I did delay buying and saved up plenty of extra deposit. This has saved me a five figure sum and let me bomb proof my finances ready for the next crash.

  17. If I may try to link the past with the present.

    Very few people said at the time that Labour was over-spending in 2003-7; certainly not the Tories or the BOE who did not tighten monetary policy as they would be obliged to do if they felt fiscal policy was too slack.
    The idea that £10bn p.a extra spending/investment for 4-5 years had any bearing on the financial crash or affect the Governments ability to respond was imo purely political opportunism and Labour allowed it to work!

    That the financial sector was insufficiently regulated here and throughout most of the west is valid as is the more serious charge that Nu Labour did insufficient to re-balance our economy and reduce our reliance on the financial services sector making the impact of the crash greater here and harder to deal with.

    Cooper, despite being called right-wing (which may be true in a civil liberties etc way) she has not fallen in to the meaningless apology for over-spending trap which Kendall and Burnham have.

  18. I distinctly remember a lot of discussion about whether the boom in the housing market would have a “soft landing” or a “hard landing”. Nice euphemisms, but I think I always knew what a “hard landing” would look like. What I hadn’t realised was the extent that the world’s banks (whom I had always assumed, wrongly, were both wise and conservative) had bet everything they had, and a lot that they didn’t have, on property prices increasing by 10% a year until the average house was worth 1,000 times annual incomes (or whatever the hell they thought would happen).

  19. @Jim Jam,

    I think you can believe that Labour spent too much, without also believing that this was a principal cause of the crash. I think if you make the Keynesian argument, post-crash, for higher public spending then you have to sort of swallow the idea that higher public spending during the boom was probably not wise. Unless of course you just have a general belief in higher public spending at all times, in which case making Keynesian arguments is a bit redundant.

    To me it looks like people like Kendall are just trying to get their logical house in order.

  20. Neil,

    You may be right but as I said above mainstream Conservatives did not say so at the time.

    As I see it my second point about Labour not doing enough to rebalance the Economy is more important.
    Had they done so then the GDP decline and hence the deficit increase would have been less stark and the structural part of the deficit smaller proportionately (the cyclical part not been a problem relatively).
    In short the cash could have been responded to more effectively had the Economy being better balanced and the £40-50bn of spending retrospectively being criticised (and apologised for) was insignificant.

    Just to show I am not a knee-jerk lefty, we could add that this failure to re-balance and instead use the City generated revenue for back door re-distribution through tax credits etc has led to the trauma Labour is having over welfare policy now.

    Rebalancing would have brought better paying jobs and lower welfare bills.

  21. @ Jim Jam ,

    Just to show I am not a knee-jerk lefty, we could add that this failure to re-balance and instead use the City generated revenue for back door re-distribution through tax credits etc has led to the trauma Labour is having over welfare policy now.

    Hear, hear. Although I’m not sure that isn’t the knee-jerk lefty position- I think that particular criticism of New Labour’s record is echoed across the whole political spectrum.

  22. Very interesting discussion.

    Like JimJam I didn’t want to look ‘smart-arse’, but yes I did divest substantially in anticipation that the housing/property bubble was at a peak.

    It is pretty obvious that Labour over-spending did not cause the Crash, but I still think they were over-spending. But come to think of it, I think that pretty much all governments over-spend, pretty much all of the time.

    I have always liked the theory that these things happen about every 17 years, so I’m not with Hawthorn with his current pessimism. Start selling around 2022 is my advice.

    Which might be two years into the next Labour government…

  23. I hope so Spearmint but many left leaners, including on here, have accused those of us who whilst criticising the Governments approach to welfare agree that the size and scope of Tax Credits being in place for so long is a failure for Labour, as pandering to the right.

    Personally I think, subsidising low paid jobs, other than as part of specific schemes to get people back to work etc, to the extent we did was a failure and wanting to address is not right wing necessarily.

  24. @Candy

    “How would a regulator have known that CDOs were a problem, given that they’d never been used before and hence there was no empirical evidence as to how they’d have behaved.”

    ———–

    But that’s the thing. You don’t know, therefore it’s a risk. By your reasoning, you would happy to take an experimental drug sans precautions because no one has yet proven it to be damaging.

    Part of the point of separating investment banking from retail was precisely to guard against such innovations by investment banks. So they can take the risk, fine, but if it turns out bad, then it doesn’t hammer retail banking on which the rest of us and business depend.

    Not that any of this alters the fact it is an error to disregard risk just because you cannot say precisely when it will be realised.

  25. Jim Jam.

    I for one do not really like tax credits, but what I dislike more is taking money out of the pockets of poor working families, which is what this is about.

    Candy

    If you read Chris Mullin’s diary, you will read a part about Bruce Grocott warning Blair about a financial crisis “sooner or later”…in an entry from 14 November 2000. Being warned and actually listening are two different things.

  26. @Candy

    “And my other point stands – it’s likely none of you even risked £1000 to back your predictions of impending financial crash, yet are annoyed that the govt of the day didn’t risk billions in advance.”

    ———-

    Well, you’re still not getting it. People know there is a RISK, but cannot necessarily say when. It could be in ten months, or ten years. So it’s a bit awkward making a bet on that basis. You also don’t know how good the government response might be etc.

    That said, as I pointed out, you could more reliably bet on a common-or-garden recession. And various peeps on the board did that around the same time, including ToH for example.

  27. @Candy

    As it happens, there is a backstory to this. Because banking thought it had “eliminated risk”, and politicians were a bit too keen to buy into it.

    In he early Seventies, Black and Scholes won a Nobel for their research giving us the Black-Scholes equation. What this equation did, was apply the diffusion equation from Chemistry, to the pricing of Derivatives.

    This was very useful, because you could use derivatives, options etc., to hedge against your investment risks. Basically it acts as a form of insurance. You make some investment, but then take out another bet to hedge against it, in case it goes wrong.

    Because black-Scholes let you work out and price the risk of such hedges, now you could invest more freely, feeling you are covered. Banks were making their investments, thinking everything was Ok, the risk was covered.

    But peeps may not always get it right, and there is a fundamental flaw. The Crunch was not caused by innovation in terms of clever new banking methods, etc., but basically by misspelling.

    Many of the sub-prime loans were mis-sold, then they were hidden in complex packages of debt, given flattering AAA ratings and sold on in a further example of mis-selling.

    To add insult to injury, some selling this stuff on, knowing they were purveying a poison chalice, then used derivatives to bet against the firms they sold the day onto, likened by some as selling a car with dodgy brakes to someone then taking out life insurance on them!!

    The upshot it, mis-selling abounds, and is hard to absolutely curtail because peeps get better at hiding stuff. Until you have some means of guaranteeing it won’t happen, you have to take a cautious stance and assume the worst.

    And you don’t have a means of guaranteeing no misselling so it’s over and we can move on…

  28. misspelling = misselling!!

  29. Day = Debt!!!!

  30. “Charlotte Church has become the latest name to declare her support for Labour candidate Jeremy Corbyn.”

    Metro.

    Game over !

  31. Jim Jam

    Very few people said at the time that Labour was over-spending in 2003-7; certainly not the Tories or the BOE who did not tighten monetary policy as they would be obliged to do if they felt fiscal policy was too slack.

    The real problem wasn’t over-spending but under-taxing. In particularly the failure to raise taxes on the better off and on business (especially larger ones) meant that they were trying to one bit of redistribution (via tax credits) with the other – relying instead purely on growth.

    The fact that most of the redistributed wealth immediately found its way back to the wealthy (via low wages and high rents) didn’t help much either.

  32. Roger Mexico

    Hear hear.

    Carfrew

    I read that the CDOs were calculated by physics graduates who misapplied renormalisation calculations from quantum physics.

  33. @hawthorn

    I bet they got paid a lot for those calculations, but I could have misapplied renormalisation much more cheaply, and efficiently. I was very good at not getting the hang of renormalisation, which seems much like voodoo maths to non-geniuses like me. Hey presto, and the infinities disappear!!

    But the greater problem is the failure to factor in stuff like mis-selling, of course, even if they got the calculations right…

  34. I have to say I agree with CARFREW. Misspelling can be a major problem. A simple mix up between millions and billions for example.

    To be serious, I have no problem with the idea of raising the standard of living of the poor, it is just that the wrong mechanisms have been used in the past and the effect is counter productive. Tax credits, (a particularly silly term) are just nuts.

    As to the crash, many could see it coming, they just couldn’t say when and the when is all important. There was also a bit of trouble with the how.

  35. I think the ratings agencies may have misspelled the ratings they gave to the dodgy debt…

  36. Maybe you’re all wrong and a sea change is in the offing. Young people are being enthused after years of being ignored in favour of the well off and pensioners.

  37. @Candy

    “Warren Buffet didn’t predict the crash, and neither George Soros (Soros actually bought into Lehman brothers in 2007 – a year before it flamed out).”

    —————–

    I think my favourite failure to predict was courtesy of Monsieur Greenspan, who said he didn’t see it, because he didn’t think business would ever act against its own interests.

    Well Christ, business does that all the time.

    It is not necessarily in the interests of those who profit by selling during booms, to give others a heads up about impending market doom. But the signs were there to see by 2007 concerning banking, a raft of them, which you ought to notice if investing in banking like Soros. Several collapsing institutions, the ECB pouring in billions in liquidity, Northern Rock… if Soros couldn’t see all that, then this is not our fault, and doesn’t mean no one else couldn’t see anything.

    I mean, even you probably noticed Northern Rock, Candy!!

  38. It’s called human nature, and it’s flawed, so don’t expect everything to proceed in a logical and convenient manner.
    I see things via my life experience, ie. Chaos is the default mode of humanity. Suits me though, I’m a retired banker, and now, investor, doing very well indeed. :-)

  39. @ Strabilla,

    The trouble with this otherwise good plan is that it only takes about 50,000 enthused young people to swing the Labour leadership contest to Corbyn, but Labour needs to get 1,000,000 of them registered and to the polls five years from now to win a general election. Possibly 2,000,000, if the old people take fright and turn out to stop him.

    So unless Kidz4Corbyn can answer for another 950,000 of their demographic cohort, Labour has a problem. I suspect that not only can’t Corbyn turn out 2,000,000 young voters by May 2020, he can’t even turn out 50,000 by September. But we’ll see.

    Don’t get me wrong. There is a generational war going on, and unless young people start fighting it at the ballot box we will keep getting slaughtered. I’m all for a bit of enthusiasm and trying to take over the Labour Party. I’m just not sure a frontal assault is the wisest approach when we know our army is vastly outnumbered and outgunned.

  40. I was thinking, that if Soros bought into Lehman’s early in 2007, then that was before many of the early signs I cited earlier. But then in theory, he might have tried selling his stake as conditions became clearer. Seems as though he was still buying more Lehman’s shares in June 2008 though?

    I mean, I only gave a snippet of the warning signs, up to September 2007, a year before the Crunch. There’s loads more…

  41. Immediately after Northern Rock…

    18 September 2007
    The US Federal Reserve cuts its main interest rate by half a percentage point to 4.75%.

    19 September
    After previously refusing to inject any funding into the markets, the Bank of England announces that it will auction £10bn.

    MAJOR LOSSES BEGIN TO EMERGE
    1 October 2007

    Swiss bank UBS is the world’s first top-flight bank to announce losses – $3.4bn – from sub-prime related investments.

    The chairman and chief executive of the bank step down. Later, banking giant Citigroup unveils a sub-prime related loss of $3.1bn. A fortnight on Citigroup is forced to write down a further $5.9bn. Within six months, its stated losses amount to $40bn.

    30 October
    Merrill Lynch’s chief resigns after the investment bank unveils a $7.9bn exposure to bad debt.

    HELP IS AT HAND

    6 December 2007
    US President George W Bush outlines plans to help more than a million homeowners facing foreclosure.

    The Bank of England cuts interest rates by a quarter of one percentage point to 5.5%.

    13 December 2007
    The US Federal Reserve co-ordinates an unprecedented action by five leading central banks around the world to offer billions of dollars in loans to banks.

    The Bank of England calls it an attempt to “forestall any prospective sharp tightening of credit conditions”. The move succeeds in temporarily lowering the rate at which banks lend to each other.

    17 December
    The central banks continue to make more funding available.

    There is a $20bn auction from the US Federal Reserve and, the following day, $500bn from the European Central Bank to help commercial banks over the Christmas period.

    NEXT UP: THE BOND INSURERS

    19 December 2007
    Ratings agency Standard and Poor’s downgrades its investment rating of a number of so-called monoline insurers, which specialise in insuring bonds.

    They guarantee to repay the loans if the issuer goes bust.
    There is concern that insurers will not be able to pay out, forcing banks to announce another big round of losses.

  42. I mean, that’s still just 2007…

  43. Carfrew
    An impressive list. I’d quibble with the reduction a quarter percent in the BoE rate as a warning sign though. In the seventies it wasn’t uncommon for rates to go up or down by 2% at a time. It was an interesting ride when one had a floating rate mortgage. Steak one week, turkey neck stew the next.

  44. @Pete B

    The Seventies were exceptional because of the volatility in prices caused by the oil price hikes, necessitating big interest rate swings to try and control the resulting inflation etc. . But yeah, I think the quarter percent is prolly just there for completeness.

  45. Carfrew
    BTW I correctly forecast every single interest change in the 1970s and adjusted my portfolio accordingly :-)

  46. @ Carfrew

    A very good list, but money (in the U.S.) for banks was essentially free from 2002. You see, they could get money not only from the FED. Everybody forgets about China … And the trillion dollar waiting for getting tax exemption …

  47. @ Hawthorn and @ Carfrew

    JP Morgan actually warned the rating agencies of the fallacy in their models. It came out in one of the hearings … Yet, they also, to a degree, fell for the fallacy.

  48. Green 8
    SNP 5
    Plaid Cymru 1

  49. @Pete B

    Well, without checking, it’s possible just tracking oil prices might give a reasonable indicator of the inflation to come and consequent interest rates…

    @ Laszlo

    I think I mentioned the cheap credit available from China earlier?…

  50. Regarding Predicting the Crunch!!

    Bird and Fortune are widely regarded as being among the first to have predicted the Crunch to come, in an episode of the South Bank Show in October 2007.

    http://youtu.be/tAAI0h9aFSo

    Here they are doing just that, with their familiar satirical chops, and it’s a handy explanation in the process (though I think some may have been a little miffed by the string vest thing…)

    Essential viewing all the same…

1 2 3 4 5 11