Wednesday, 15 January 2020

We Wunt Be Druv


"And you may pook
And you may shove
But a Sussex pig:

He wunt be druv."


In a vain attempt to boost my readership and demonstrate how in touch with popular culture I am, I’ m going to shamelessly start this blog post with a reference to a couple that have been in the popular printing press recently, namely Prince Henry and Princess Mary Meghanmarkle (see? I keep in touch). Keen newspaper-enthusiasts will know that they are titled as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (or, more informally: "the Sussexes of Sussex").

I grew up in Sussex. Although I am (according to a recent DNA test, non-court related) 98.4% Welsh genetically, my family have been in Sussex for around about a century now. In fact, in the Sussex village that I live in, I am now only two generations off being considered ‘local’. And if you grow up in Sussex, you will be aware of our county motto – also printed on bottles of our local brew, Harveys Beer:

“We wunt be druv”

In Sussex dialogue, this means “we won’t be driven” – in other words, you can’t tell us what to think.

I think there is something of this still in the Sussex character. I’ve no doubt that one of my heroes, Tom Paine, one of the inspirations behind the American revolution, had ideas forged by his Sussex background. He was from Lewes, and was, incidentally, arguably one of the three most famous people to come from the Lewes region (the other two being the puritan Anthony Stepley, a Lewes local who signed the death warrant for Charles I and played a part in banning mince pies, and journalist Piers Morgan, who comes from adjacent Newick. Scholars are currently divided over which of the two could be considered the biggest mood killer at parties).

Although they have only reportedly spent a total of 5.5 hours in Sussex, I like to think that something of this character has rubbed off on the Royal couple. Accordingly, I wish them well and I hope they enjoy Canada and competing in next year’s Celebrity Love Dancing Strictly on Ice.

One of the items to get the most coverage is the fact that the taxpayer ultimately underwrote the renovation of the house which they currently RENT. (Ed: See? I managed to segue seamlessly back to the housing market! Clever eh?) 

In this regard they are typical of their demographic: priced out of buying a palace of their own by sky-high asset prices, they are instead forced to rent their palace, unlike their baby-boomer Princely parents who obtained palaces whey they were comparatively cheap (ie approx. 1485). Is it any wonder they want to emigrate?

This is of course reflected throughout the wider housing market, right down to the hovels that us serfs live in, where house prices are through the roof, massively penalizing a generation, and setting the scene for the great Peasants' Revolt of 2024/5.

Now, despite being told consistently for years that my view is nonsense, and that high houses prices are actually down to a lack of supply, over and over again on this blog I have been ranting about the real cause: nothing to do with a lack of supply, but almost entirely down to low interest rates. I have been told repeatedly that I am wrong, in all sorts of different forums, by all sorts of different people (for example, see comments here: https://propertyindustryeye.com/we-dont-need-more-new-homes-to-solve-the-housing-crisis-claim/).

But I wunt be druv. And now - hurrah! - the Bank of England have published a paper more or less proving my point - saying that, if the main cause of rising prices was a lack of properties, then rents would also have increased sharply – but this has not happened.

And then, to quote:

Nearly all of the rise in average house prices relative to incomes can be seen as a result of a sustained, dramatic, and consistently unexpected, decline in real interest rates.

I have already heard three separate housing experts on the radio say this is now the cause, and was all along, forgetting that almost no one outside my little tinfoil-hat wearing community thought this even six months ago.

I am admittedly consistently wrong about timings and predictions, but still: ta da! I win.

You can download the paper here, although it’s quicker to read my blogposts from 2013-2019 (and ignore the bits on timings and predictions – in economics, things always take longer to happen than you think, anyway – although when they do happen, they happen faster than you think they will):

Worryingly, the paper also states that: “...average house prices could plunge by one-fifth if there is an unexpected interest rate rise of 1 percentage point”. This indicates that they have only read half of my blog posts so far.

I’ll update you when they read the rest of my posts, and publish their next paper *Spoiler alert*: it’s going to be titled “Oh Sh*t we’re all going to hell in a handcart, economically speaking, aren’t we?”.

So just goes to show: make your own mind up, and don’t listen to what 99% of the economists and housing experts say on the meedja, because three years later they’ll change their minds, and claim that they didn’t think that at all anyway.

In other words: don’t be druv, bruv.

No comments:

Post a Comment