Are we expecting BOE to remain at 4.75% on 8th February 2025?

ReadySteadyPop

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

Recently it was upwards because, as you said, there was an unusual period of almost zero.  Pretty difficult to go anywhere else from there.

Ignore that bit, and you can pick any trend you want because there will be numbers to support it.  So far you've said that we're not allowed to use 1970-1990 or 2008-2020 in the trends, any more bits you want to exclude to make your story work?

And the merry-go-round goes on.

The only story we need is that base rate is back to 5.25%, personally I think that is a great thing.

BarelySentientAI

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

Recently it was upwards because, as you said, there was an unusual period of almost zero.  Pretty difficult to go anywhere else from there.

Ignore that bit, and you can pick any trend you want because there will be numbers to support it.  So far you've said that we're not allowed to use 1970-1990 or 2008-2020 in the trends, any more bits you want to exclude to make your story work?

And the merry-go-round goes on.

The only story we need is that base rate is back to 5.25%, personally I think that is a great thing.

Seems like a sensible rate at the moment, if only they'd stop with the short-term messing about and pointless 'leaks' about when it might change again.

RelievedSheff

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

Recently it was upwards because, as you said, there was an unusual period of almost zero.  Pretty difficult to go anywhere else from there.

Ignore that bit, and you can pick any trend you want because there will be numbers to support it.  So far you've said that we're not allowed to use 1970-1990 or 2008-2020 in the trends, any more bits you want to exclude to make your story work?

And the merry-go-round goes on.

The only story we need is that base rate is back to 5.25%, personally I think that is a great thing.

Seems like a sensible rate at the moment, if only they'd stop with the short-term messing about and pointless 'leaks' about when it might change again.

Fully agree with this.

Hoenir

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

A sudden correction of Base Rates. Has a long way to go yet to filter out into the real economy. Even if Base Rate falls slightly there's still upward pressure on borrowing costs as a whole. 

ReadySteadyPop

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

A sudden correction of Base Rates. Has a long way to go yet to filter out into the real economy. Even if Base Rate falls slightly there's still upward pressure on borrowing costs as a whole. 

Seems that KS agrees with you, he said as much in the televised debate.

lojo1000

This chart suggests there remains a lot more upward adjustment to go on mortgage refinancing. Also corporate loans will undergo the same impact.



However, I think ppl and banks did so much debt deference in 2021/2022 that repayments are lower/ terms extended that the impact on the economy of higher rates is not harmful in the short term.

In the longer term however, ppl will be paying mortgages for longer (35 year mortgages, interest only, etc) and so in later years ppl will have less disposable income than otherwise. 

Also, another impact of parents giving money to children for a house deposit means there is less of a transfer to wealth in later years.

If ppl have less wealth in later years the onus on the govt to provide financial support will continue to increase.

Expect govt debt to continue to go up and up as there is less money in the hands of the general population and more wealth concentrated in fewer hands

 

ReadySteadyPop

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

A sudden correction of Base Rates. Has a long way to go yet to filter out into the real economy. Even if Base Rate falls slightly there's still upward pressure on borrowing costs as a whole. 

Todays U.S data seems to be backing that up.

ReadySteadyPop

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

A sudden correction of Base Rates. Has a long way to go yet to filter out into the real economy. Even if Base Rate falls slightly there's still upward pressure on borrowing costs as a whole. 

What effect do you think the political changes in the EU will have?

Hoenir

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

sevenhills said:

fergie_ said:

The mortgage market lags slightly behind the swap markets. Swaps had been coming down - hence some small cuts - and are now creeping back up.

But what should the interest rates be, to benefit the whole economy? Savers need a little interest and businesses need lowish rates.

7% base rate is the historical average I believe?

Pick whatever data you want to get whatever result you want.  You could get anywhere from 2% to 15% as the "historical average".

Can you show me how you get 15% as the average?

By defining "historical" to be 1979 - 1982.  That is a period in history, so it is a historical average.  Not a good one, but then any selected period is arbitrary. 

There is no such thing as "the historical average".

Economists tend to use meaningful chunks of time, 25 years for example, because that is the term of an average mortgage (well used to be) or even longer, I think the 7% figure is a 300 year average maybe, that would be classed as "historical" surely? You seem to be trying to say that interest rates don`t matter much when it is obvious they do matter a great deal to a great number of people, what happens if the four or five years of 15% happens right after your fix on a big mortgage taken at a much lower rate ends?

They don't directly matter that much to any individual, and any selected trend or average is even less useful.

Planning on timing the market, either in terms of interest rate or value, is a fool's errand.

So you don`t think people care about the cost to service their debt, or do you mean something else? What I mean is that the historical averages are a good guide to where rates tend to go without intervention (only massive intervention by central banks allowed the last few years of rates to happen)

Base rate is a macro-level concern that should be approached as one of many contributory levers to the whole economy.  As an individual, what the base rate was in 1952, 2002, or last Thursday means almost nothing.  Neither, realistically, does any trend in that rate.  If you take an effectively fixed-interest deal, which most do (not just in terms of mortgage, but all debt), the only thing that really matters is what the retail rate is at the point when the deal ends.  Whether it goes up, down or sideways in between is completely irrelevant.  People who think it is an important metric are those who chase the market and end up getting burned.

Which random historical average - which actually refer to different rates at different points in the past - do you think is the magic one that things will always happily sit at?  Don't you think that there are other things that might also feed into the 'best' rate which can change over time?

Or is your perspective that fundamentally the economy now is the same as it was in 1750 and it will be exactly the same in 2250, so actually the rate is pointless - in which case why do any trends in it matter then?

No, my perspective is that there is a one off near zero rate (that lasted a long time) due to massive central bank intervention, and a more normal "trend" that we can see from historical data, the smart mortgage borrower will look at the trend not the abnormal period.

Ignore the near zero and the normal trend over the last 40 years is downwards.

More recently the trend has been upwards. The great bond bull market is over. 

Yes, a very fast and noticeable upwards.

A sudden correction of Base Rates. Has a long way to go yet to filter out into the real economy. Even if Base Rate falls slightly there's still upward pressure on borrowing costs as a whole. 

What effect do you think the political changes in the EU will have?

None at all. The international money markets wield huge power and influence. Greater than democratically elected Government. 

lojo1000

Today's UK employment data showed continuing weakening in a tight market with wages still c.3% over the CPI target.

BoE unlikely to move any further toward a cut on this data.

3m bills showing no sign of an imminent cut either. If Labour get in (July) and we see/hear talk of spending plans over and above what they lay out this week or in advance of raising taxes; i.e. market gets some sniff of a willingness to increase debt, we could see yields higher. 

That's not a high probability but it is a risk. I don't think there is any easy way to raise taxes in a material way w/out hitting consumer/business confidence.