The coverage was prolific and almost identical both times. Luckily, a year is beyond the memory horizon for the media, so they just do it all again.
One of my contentions, which was more difficult to prove, was the reason why house prices have risen so disastrously over the past three decades.
Conventional wisdom - not a happy phrase - suggests that it is simply a matter of supply and demand, and clearly there is an element of this. I'm not sure why the political establishment clings to the idea that this is the whole reason, but I suppose it is because it gives them the illusion that they have some control over it (not that they exercise it).
But it doesn't really make sense. For one thing, demand from the Far East in particular may be infinite, at least we have to assume that, and there is no way we could build enough to satisfy the investors of Singapore.
For another thing, the great leaps in house price inflation - which have had such a devastating effect on the UK, narrowing the economy, tying up resources, and narrowing the life chances of our children - have all happened when the amount of money pouring into the housing market has soared.
The prices haven't risen during periods of unprecedented housing shortages, like the post-war period. No, the real reason house prices rise - at least as much as they have - is because too much money has gone into mortgage finance.
It is certainly about supply and demand, but about too much money chasing too few goods. There are also too few goods, it is true, which clearly doesn't help.
People involved in politics tend to look at me rather non-plussed when I say this, so I'm clearly not as convincing as I might like to think.
So I was fascinated to read in the Financial Times this week that a research project at LSE has confirmed what I'm saying - and which incidentally, Kate Barker also said: there is no close link between housing numbers and house prices.
It talks about a study of large developments and found that:
"Developments of the size and scale studied, even in areas where originally objections were significant, can lead to more rapid rises in local house prices."
So let's turn our attention on how to regulate the mortgage market to bring prices down relative to incomes, and give our children a chance to rent and own where they want to.
The time may have come to resurrect a new version of the famous Corset from the 1970s, which regulated the amount of money going into the market - in the days when politicians were more economically literate than they are now.
It can't be the same; there will need to be new safeguards to prevent foreign banks lending into the UK property market - perhaps by making those mortgage debts unenforceable in UK courts.
It won't be easy. But if we don't do something, the only people who will be able to afford to live in London and the south east will be people in financial services, and the poor and hopelessly dependent.
Subscribe to this blog on email; send me a message with the word blogsubscribe to firstname.lastname@example.org. When you want to stop, you can email me the word unsubscribe.