Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

That was an improvement from your usual posts.

So what sport do you play?

None, just a bit of walking.

Hays,

You are out of touch with what the public opinion will be in 2015.

They won't accept the bleating of mantras, such as; it is all due to the previous government 5 years before.

They see the problems have been increases by discredited tory laden misgovernment, more capable of rapid u-turns in the face of public opinion rather than policies to resolve ongoing problems.

Cameron and Osborne and clique will be seen as more interested in self preservation and disproportionate financial advantages an opportunities for themselves than that of the country as a whole.

They will probably be seen by many of the electorate as basically dishonest and arrogant.

============


Just for information what has been the advantages of vicious austerity in Spain, Italy, Portugal and France?

Not against pruning waste and dropping of expectations, that to my mind is important, but one doesn't cut the roots off a plant because it is not growing or growing to slowly.

===============

By the way are a signed up member of "mad, swivel-eyed loons" brigade.

Just found this cartoon again.

Suggest Cameron does so once again.

Perhaps, refers to the socially caring period of his life.
------------

Just hiding behind a hoody.

PS.

I hear some are sharpening the knives at HQ. for Dave and Georgie Boy.

(I will help, if I can.)

8-)

It is not a question of what was the advantage of austerity in Spain, Portugal, Italy and France. The process was necessary due to the debt. If Labour was in government we would still be having extensive cuts as they have admitted themselves. The difference is that they would be borrowing as well, which is the last thing we need.

I think you are wrong about the public. Polls show that the public still blames our woes on Brown's government. If the economy picks up enough by the time of the selection then the Conservatives will benefit from it. Labour will still be perceived as untrustworthy regarding the economy.

The Conservatives are still very happy with Cameron and Osborne.

One of the things that Labour misunderstood during the Thatcher years is that when there is high unemployment, the ones with jobs do better than normal. That is enough to win elections.

Good luck Bonnie.

Yes, c'mon Bonnie - what a voice!

Just watching EURO VISION... what an pile of sh-te.


My god im turning funny,



Her indoors thinks it great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



My god give me breath.



Opening that bottle of vodka I bought earlier.

Roll on next year. :-))

Mervyn King not impressed with Tories :


Sir Mervyn King said there "was no place in the long run" for Chancellor George Osborne's Help to Buy scheme.

"This scheme is a little too close for comfort to a general scheme to guarantee mortgages. We had a very healthy mortgage market with competing lenders attracting borrowers before the [financial] crisis, and we need to get back to that healthy mortgage market.

"We do not want what the United States have, which is a government-guaranteed mortgage market - and they are desperately trying to find a way out of that position."

He added: "So, we mustn't let this scheme turn into a permanent scheme... when is the right time to terminate it will depend on economic conditions at the time."

BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam said Sir Mervyn was concerned that, should the scheme become permanent, it could leave taxpayers exposed to billions of pounds in private mortgage debt for years to come.

That is just a warning about the loan guarantee system. The difference is that ours is to be short lived and the normal credit checks will be made. The US system was very different as it involved people with no deposit and no way of paying the mortgage. The US system is also more dangerous than ours. In the US, if you cannot pay your mortgage you can hand back the keys and you don't have to pay back any of the loan. That means that people with no deposit and poor credit bought houses and treated the payments as rent. When they couldn't pay, they would just move. That's why the banks had it so hard. They owned all the houses and the debts were all bad an unrecoverable.

"The difference is that ours is to be short lived

Is that the tory government, which is looking more like a split of bananas.

Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is hare-brained and poorly thought out.

Aside from the fact that Osborne has totally missed the point that the banks will only start to lend again once all the 'Banker Bashing' has stopped and the banks have fully repaired their balance sheets, the scheme itself is flawed insofar as it will invariably fail to help the people who need it the most and, instead, it will mainly help the people who either don't need it or who shouldn't benefit from it, such as second home owners and overseas investors.

If he's hell bent on bring the scheme in, it should at the very least be made exclusively available to UK tax payers whose income falls below a certain threshold.

It is not the low incomes that need to be helped in that way as they will have trouble paying the mortgage. That will lead to defaulting. The scheme is aimed at those who don't have the deposit but can repay the loan. The scheme is not a social benefit scheme, but to help the housing and construction sectors.

I stand by my assertion.

Bank lending criteria has changed over recent years, and has reverted to more historic lending multiples, so the chances of banks lending to people without sufficient income to repay is currently next to zero, regardless of whether or not they're taking advantage of Help to Buy. An income cap would direct the scheme more towards first time buyers (which is the category to whom I was actually referring as 'needing it most') and away from the overseas buyers and second home owners who most definitely shouldn't be allowed to benefit from the scheme imo.

If the chancellor wanted to help the housebuilders, a starting point would be to offer some halfway-decent incentives to the builders themselves which might then inspire them to build with a view to meeting perceived real demand as opposed to artificial demand created from schemes like Help to Buy. As it stands, the property market is already over-inflated by, imo, about 30% and risks being pumped up even further by Help to Buy.

Hilary,

Stop it.

I am beginning to agree with you.

It is a little like the sub-prime mortgage fiasco all over again.

I had KGN for a while and glad I dump them before they collapsed.

(It was a crazy but lucky "investment" or "gamble" at the time.)

----

The cash being used for the scheme could be ploughed into social housing which would have been directly into the economy and been a general stimulation with the housing remaining in public ownership. Far simpler and more effective.

--------------------

It is all in a cartoon.

.