Lloyds Share Price (LLOY)

Boris,

"As a result, people have always felt comfortable with him. There is nothing starchy or censorious about him: quite the reverse. Among many voters his frankly disreputable private life probably works in his favour. People rarely enjoy the company of saints, but never mind meeting another sinner.

No wonder, then, that Johnson performs well in what American political scientists call the 'beer test', on the premise that the winner of the presidential election is usually the candidate with whom voters would rather have a drink."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7691325/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-Boris-Johnson-poshest-working-class-hero-Winston-Churchill.html

It now transpires 47% of working class votes going to Boris , the liberal hy pocrites for Jo and the useful idiots for JC . His got the election in the bag . Once again , this broadband lark , much ado about nowt .

Tranter,"What this means for Lloyds is far far fewer can now afford to save the lager deposit to buy a home, as wages are lower, the deposit and purchase price is higher, thanks indirectly to mass immigration."
I doubt reducing immigration would improve the Lloyds SP, the top four jobs of government,pm,chancellor,home secretary and foreign secretary are already occupied by 2nd/3rd generation immigrants.
Raab did smirk yesterday when he said they would only admit the best and brightest, was he thinking about himself.

Longtimeinvesor,

You've touched my heart.

What annoyed me was seeing people with sensible valuations (and only willing to borrow a sensible amount) losing out on getting a house because some part-time happy-go-lucky (here today, gone tomorrow) came along with a ludicrous self-certified loan and gazumped those who actually needed a house (and were not just speculating using other people's money - the happy-go-lucky sort were willing to take to profits from house price increases but had no intention of actually repaying their debt if house prices fell - in that situation they intended to just up sticks and start a new life in Australia or Thailand).

It really was very galling seeing houses go from £39,000 in 1996 to £175,000 in 2010 just because MPs all had second homes and were doing anything to flood the economy with money (large annual increases in housing benefit, banks were told to deregulate and they turned a blind-eye to "liar loans," the pay deal by Patricia Hewitt to doctors was far too generous and gave them a 30% rise from 2004-2007).

In short it was the economics of madness and that's why house prices went up at about 5 times the official rate of inflation every year from 1996-2007.

The only want to correct it is to put interest rates back up to 5% and then houses will return to reasonable and fair value.

However, a lot of MPs probably still have second, third, or even fourth homes, so realistically they would be dead against interest rates going up to 5% even though they are meant to be independent (as is the bank of England).

But answer me this. If policymakers are truly independent with no vested interested in certain sectors such as maintaining property prices (as they are meant to be) then how come every call to raise interest rates is greeted with five times the howls of protest compared to a call to cut interest rates (or to maintain them at historically unprecedented low levels).

If their are no vested interests at work regarding interest rates then how come the media howls in protest every time an economist suggests that they need to rise by a few percent at least?

Boomer, I'd be happy with a Banksy, without the shredder.

ps, Could be, Sareum is on the runway, early days n rumours of take off, but its a hold for me, as I've been here before, so steady as she goes, hopefully n up she rises.!