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.

Next :-)

Spot on Dil, haystack has a growing reputation as a retard. Poor lad.

By the way I have reported Haystack TO BULLSHARE(management) saying there is no RULES on this thread.

I can assure posters that there is. Nobody and I mean nobody is above the law. That includes everyone and should be respected.

Check out the terms and conditions at the bottom of the page.

While your at it why don't you report yourself and Fred for disrupting the thread by posting endless class war rubbish just to wind up other posters

p s Are you and Bullshare ex members of a working class Bulingdon club ? maybe his a fellow mason

There must be a space for a member of the BNP or UKIP in the nest

Mind the nest seems to be selling off its golden eggs, or are they being paid out in MP expenses of the "we are all in it together government". I suppose they are just trying to rebalance the books.

I wonder how their "trust funds" are getting on.

Would mansion tax apply to trust fund owned properties?


I'm thinking of big dave and co.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-benefits-on-welfare-at-labours-expense-8812897.html

David Cameron benefits on welfare at Labour’s expense

Ed Miliband is under pressure to take a tougher approach to welfare after a survey found that he is not trusted by voters to prevent benefits spending rising out of control.

A YouGov poll for the Labour Uncut blog found that many people blame the last Labour government for the £200bn-a-year bill for welfare and tax credits. Some 44 per cent of people (and 30 per cent of Labour supporters) believe welfare spending is too high, while only 18 per cent think it is too low and 17 per cent say it is about right.

When those who say the welfare bill is too high are asked who they believe is responsible for it, a majority (54 per cent) blame the last Labour government and only 5 per cent the Coalition. Some 31 per cent think the last and present governments are equally responsible and 8 per cent blame neither.

Asked who would do more to prevent welfare spending rising out of control, only 14 per cent of the public name Mr Miliband and 45 per cent opted for David Cameron, while 25 per cent reply “neither.” When asked who they trusted most to create jobs and reduce unemployment, the two leaders are neck and neck. Some 28 per cent trust Mr Miliband, 27 per cent Mr Cameron and 30 per cent neither.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/ed-miliband-weak-weird-and-out-of-his-depth/

The next election is going to be close. Very close, according to new polling from YouGov. When asked which government they would prefer after the next election, 41 per cent said a Conservative government led by David Cameron compared to 40 per cent for a Labour government led Ed Miliband.

This does not mean Miliband is gaining momentum. In July, Labour had a 13 point lead in YouGov polls. Today, it has more than halved to just six points.

LABOURS LEAD growing......WELL DONE ED..........

electionista‏@electionista12 Sep
UK - YouGov/Sun poll: CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%


Now a 7% lead up from 3% last week during congress week.

Fact is with a 7% lead Labour would have an overall majority of 90 plus seats.

The Lib Dems are history.

Haystack is history.

goldfinger, wrong as usual

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/13/update-labour-lead-4/

Update: Labour lead at 4
by YouGov in Politics
Fri September 13, 6 a.m. BST

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 12th September - Con 34%, Lab 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%;

The dim/libs look like they are finished.

But what does 8% mean seat wise?

Difficult to say due to constituency boundaries. The Libs are pretty consistent with their seats. They usually bounce back in a real election and people revert to type. The same is probably true of UKIP. I guess they won't actually gain a single MP. The Libs support is concentrated in a small number of seats, so their percentage has more effect. UKIP's support is spread evenly across the country. That means their current percentage probably won't translate into any actual seats.

Fair enough, thanks.

How a house price cap could work

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has called for the Bank of England to cap house-price rises at 5% a year. Here we explore how a cap would work


Hilary Osborne, Heather Stewart and Patrick Collinson

theguardian.com, Friday 13 September 2013 11.23 BST


Why does Rics want a cap?

The organisation says limiting house prices would prevent a dangerous new property bubble, reckless lending and a build-up in consumer debt. By letting people know that they can only expect prices to rise by up to 5%, the Bank of England would stop homebuyers and lenders gambling on rising prices. During the last property boom lenders such as Northern Rock offered 125% mortgages, based on an expectation that prices would rise and borrowers would not end up in negative equity for long – but when prices crashed some people were left stuck with huge loans. Rics argues that everyone would be more cautious if there was a price cap.


Why set it at 5%?

Rics says it is "not wedded" to the figure, which it based on the average annual growth in UK earnings, plus an allowance for price pressure caused by a lack of supply of homes for sale. Growth is currently exceeding that level, according to Halifax's latest house price index..http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/06/house-prices-rise-halifax



main story: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/13/how-house-price-cap-work

I maybe as thick as usual and I can see how you can limit the flow of money into the general "market", but how does this "government" directly limit the asking price for a house, or limit it increase in price if somebody wants to buy it, if only part of the deposit its borrowed from the "banks"?

Or is this another U-turn on its way but at the price of Joe Soap?

Limiting the flow of money is enough to stop house price rises. Enforcing tight multiples of income for loans will have the same defect as will increasing the percentage for deposits. They are all devices that have been used to restrict credit and consequently house prices. House prices do need to rise a bit as they have been depressed for too long.

UMMMH.

What are the repercussions?

I agree with you on that , its nothing new and a % limit is like a wage raise limit ., better ways to do it , going against market forces is a risky thing to do.

This is merely an idea by the RICS that they have asked the BoE to look at. There is no government policy, no U-turn on the horizon and, aside from setting the BoE a mandate (which is primarily to regulate inflation), the government has no control whatsoever over decisions made by the MPC.

OBC,

I noticed a few pages back that you asked about a road from Pau to somewhere (was it Zaragoza?). I don't know the road myself, but, as a suggestion, why don't you call it up on Google maps and look at the streetview. You'll quickly be able to tell what it's like and whether it's drivable in your MiniWinne.