House prices fell by 0.4% in May.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

carolt wrote: »

As I work on a contract basis, I don't have a secure job - if I lose this one, I'll get another one. And if I can't, I'll do more self-employed work.

So I don't really get your point about teachers losing their jobs.

Good luck with that :T:T

borntobefree

carolt wrote: »

I'm looking forward to ordinary people aged under 40 to be able to afford a house. That's why I stated I was looking forward to the double-dip in house prices.

Clearly that makes me outrageously selfish.

As I work on a contract basis, I don't have a secure job - if I lose this one, I'll get another one. And if I can't, I'll do more self-employed work.

So I don't really get your point about teachers losing their jobs.

I'm looking forward to the Con-Libs cutting the public sector down to size. Who cares if lots of you lose your jobs- lol. That's why I'm looking forward to the double dip in the economy :T:T:T. Bring it on.

Clearly that makes me outrageously selfish but - hey since we're all being honest;)

chucky

the_flying_pig wrote: »

yup.

i distinctly remember you in january 2010, jumping up and down telling anyone who'd listen, that it was important to understand that the small recorded SA Halifax rise was in fact, on a NSA basis, a pretty chunky fall.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=29589985&postcount=72

nice try but there's no jumping up and down.

note to self for next time - must try harder. mug.

carolt

borntobefree wrote: »

I'm looking forward to the Con-Libs cutting the public sector down to size. Who cares if lots of you lose your jobs- lol. That's why I'm looking forward to the double dip in the economy :T:T:T. Bring it on.

Clearly that makes me outrageously selfish but - hey since we're all being honest;)

Well, I work in the private sector; so won't affect me.

the_flying_pig

chucky wrote: »

nice try but there's no jumping up and down.

note to self for next time - must try harder. mug.

Sorry chuck [I'll overlook the needless personal insult], maybe I needed to spell it out a bit more simply:

1 - The Halifax numbers were positive for Jan 10.
2 - But only on a seasonal adjusted basis - on a non-SA basis they fell by 1%.
3 - So if, as you dubiously claimed earlier on this thread, you are a 'non SA man' by rights you should have at least mentioned this on the thread of the time.
4 - But instead you appeared to be spewing out the usual drivel about supply and [rampant, naturally] demand.
5 - I infer from this that you're rather less wedded to non-SA figures than you claim.

Clearer?

Henry_P_Chester

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Sorry chuck [I'll overlook the needless personal insult], maybe I needed to spell it out a bit more simply:

1 - The Halifax numbers were positive for Jan 10.
2 - But only on a seasonal adjusted basis - on a non-SA basis they fell by 1%.
3 - So if, as you dubiously claimed earlier on this thread, you are a 'non SA man' by rights you should have at least mentioned this on the thread of the time.
4 - But instead you appeared to be spewing out the usual drivel about supply and [rampant, naturally] demand.
5 - I infer from this that you're rather less wedded to non-SA figures than you claim.

Clearer?

People will always use the number that suit them. Chucky and hamish do it all the time.

chucky

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Sorry chuck [I'll overlook the needless personal insult], maybe I needed to spell it out a bit more simply

sorry pig man - i'll overlook the tangent you've just taken because you'd come back with something else equally as irrelevant to the first post you tried to catch me out on

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Clearer?

for me? always clear but i doubt it will ever be clear for you though.

i'm sure you'll be back... chin up though.