Cruch to last at LEAST another 18 mnths

logie28

drbeat wrote: »

Oops, just noticed that you wrote "1990 s" lol!

Didn't know that Great Britain fought a war in Albania? I'm sure there was one in Kosovo...but Albania? Hmm? But I suppose after seeing all that suffering you retreated off to your barracks and enjoyed a nice meal.

English with an "E" as in an nationality; english with an "e" as in the english language.

BTW, to write that english is unique to England is like writing that the english language is unique to England...which it isn't!

I don't rely on a computer; but I do rely on my education!

quite right we did fight in kosovo,, surely an educated man would know the british army where first posted in Macedonia, then advanced into kosovo and liberated the country,

Quite a few of us spent time in Albania setting up refugee camps before hand, this is rarely reported, you know, the nasty british army actually helping people out..

BTW I never posted english is unique to England (which it obviously is .. unique. the language obviously originated from this great country, hence.the title of the language!!)

My point of unique use of the language was local dialect, which is unique within a language within its self!!!!

you uncouth educated sloth!!!!!!!!!!!lol

drbeat

Right I see, thanks for the info.

Dithering_Dad

geoffky wrote: »

DITHERING DAD
There are so many posters that are rubbing their hands together with glee at the thought of a recession that it makes one wonder why they're going to immune from the effects. If they have a secret stretegy for survival, then I for one want to share in it!!!!

Have enought money in the bank....its that easy:rotfl:

How much is enough?

How much do you have?

I have enough to last me about 12 months if I'm careful - what happens if we have a deep recession (or depression as some are forecasting) that lasts, say, 3 to 5 years? Then what?

I will have lost all my savings that I've built up in order to secure my family's future and you will have lost all your savings that you built up for your future house purchase (or whatever your goal is). All because other people, including the government, decided not to be as prudent and frugal as us.

I'm not saying 'don't talk about a recession because you'll make it worse', I'm just saying that I don't understand how some people are so gleeful about it, especially as these people seem to have been the sensible ones who saved their money while others squandered it. The ones who have saved money will have to use their savings to keep themselves afloat, while the squanderers will just beclare bankruptcy and walk away - ready to do it all over again once the recession is over and their credit records have been cleaned.

Dithering_Dad

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Because if there was no recession and house prices continuously rose as they did 1997-2007 the your kids would never be able to afford to buy a house!

We don't need a recession to control house prices, we needed a decent government that put in legislation to prevent banks from lending 125% LTV, ensured people had at least 5% or 10% deposits, forced banks to check incomes and made sure that bonuses and overtime were not included and set the maximum lending limit to 3x salary for singles and 3x main salary and 1x second salary for couples. If we had stricter lending controls and lending limits tied to income, then there could not be a boom.

Using recessions to 'control' housprices brings to mind the hammer and nut analogy.

In a recession, we ALL pay for the mistakes of the banks, foolish people who borrowed more than they could afford and the goverment's general ineptitude, even the sensible people like myself who have been overpaying on their mortgages while others MEWed and those who decided to stay in rented accomodation longer in order to save a greater deposit.

If we lose our jobs and have a sustained recession, we will all have to take a hit in our savings even though we've been prudent with our finances. This is why I don't want a recession and this is why I'm confused as to why anyone in their right mind would want one.

lostinrates

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

We don't need a recession to control house prices, we needed a decent government that put in legislation to prevent banks from lending 125% LTV, ensured people had at least 5% or 10% deposits, forced banks to check incomes and made sure that bonuses and overtime were not included and set the maximum lending limit to 3x salary for singles and 3x main salary and 1x second salary for couples. If we had stricter lending controls and lending limits tied to income, then there could not be a boom.

What happens to the people already borrowing outside these criteria? what happens about those who are high income and want to spean less disposable income on holidays/plasma screens etc etc and more on their home? It also seems this cre=iteria would not be without a crashng effect on huge numbers of property whih would in effect reduce the poplace's spending power....leading to?;)

In a recession, we ALL pay for the mistakes of the banks, foolish people who borrowed more than they could afford and the goverment's general ineptitude, even the sensible people like myself who have been overpaying on their mortgages while others MEWed and those who decided to stay in rented accomodation longer in order to save a greater deposit.

If we lose our jobs and have a sustained recession, we will all have to take a hit in our savings even though we've been prudent with our finances. This is why I don't want a recession and this is why I'm confused as to why anyone in their right mind would want one.

I agree. At the moment though those NOT on the housing maket, those not benefiting from and HPI and those who have been prudent are unfairly paying anywa trough rescue schemes for those who do not fit that catagory, alone with the 'truely deserving'.

The 'want' for recession comes up over anmd over in these discussions. think for me, and perhaps for others, its not a want but an acceptance of its likelyhood and a position of how in our respective positions we best ride it out or deal with it. the 'everyone who doesn't own a house is baying for the blood of all normaland decent Brits' thing is getting grating. (not saying its just DD saying this, its not, but it IS grating.- I presume people like me are included in the accusation).

Generali

logie28 wrote: »

A list of tax increases is pathetic because that is what governments do,!!!
not just labour(who incidentally cut the income tax this April,, sorry shouldn't mention tax cuts) look at the list , alcohol tobacco, fuel,, surely labour aren't the first to do this, ( the red diesel one is truly not worth a mention)

The government isn't "trying to intervene, now the market is bust, it is intervening because the market(and public)needs it to..

when in 1997 did GB say he wouldn't let house price spiral out of control? can you give a direct quote? or is this just another urban myth??.. i.e when Mrs thatcher said the great "society"(totally miss quoted speech)

Lets look at things from a different angle, the UK housing boom did not come round from great marketing from estate agents and the housing market.

more than likely as a result fromBritain's booming, solid and confident economy of the day, ( many where left behind!!)

Of course his prolific spending relied on tax... first rule of politics,, you dont have any money....... only the public's money(i.e tax) labour, like any other democratically elected party did not intentionally set out to destroy this country ,, only better it.. a big argument to be had on either side of what was achieved and what wasn't....


I'm only trying to point out, the government isn't always to blame..... we all have personal responsibilities, and all make mistakes...

In his 1997 budget speech, Gordon Brown said, "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery." That's pretty direct IMO.

A bubble in house prices was then encouraged by the UK government (indirectly by their reaction to Equitable Life and their changes to pension law as well as directly by not allowing enough building in the South East).

Dithering_Dad

lostinrates wrote: »

What happens to the people already borrowing outside these criteria? what happens about those who are high income and want to spean less disposable income on holidays/plasma screens etc etc and more on their home? It also seems this cre=iteria would not be without a crashng effect on huge numbers of property whih would in effect reduce the poplace's spending power....leading to?;)

People who are already outside this criteria already have their borrowing in place, so obviously you couldn't enforce this retrospectively. The time to have put this legislation into place was before the last boom, prior to everyone getting these mad loans, we will soon have another opportunity once this recession comes to an end and the economy starts to pick up (i.e. prior to the next boom).

Those on higher income will obviously be able to obtain higher loans but still within a prudent 3x salary or (3x main & 1x second salary) structure. If they want to get a larger property then they could just SAVE UP a larger deposit. Does anyone remember that concept any more?

If people have smaller mortgages due to cheaper house prices, they will have more disposible income to either save or spend as they will - profiting the wider economy. Having people spending 50/60/70% of their income on mortgages or rents does not make for a healthy economy.

lostinrates wrote: »

The 'want' for recession comes up over anmd over in these discussions. think for me, and perhaps for others, its not a want but an acceptance of its likelyhood and a position of how in our respective positions we best ride it out or deal with it. the 'everyone who doesn't own a house is baying for the blood of all normaland decent Brits' thing is getting grating. (not saying its just DD saying this, its not, but it IS grating.- I presume people like me are included in the accusation).

There is a difference between discussing a recession, it's implications, impacts and strategies to ride it out. It's quite enough to be foaming at the mouth with glee at every bit of economic bad news, or to believe that we have to have a recession to correct house prices as at leats one poster has stated.

If you fall into the latter of these two (and I don't think you do - at least I'm not aware of it) then yes, I'm accusing you and perhaps you should look at yourself a little.

I've not said anywhere that I thought it was only those who don't own a home who are gleeful for a recession. To be honest, not many people in here own their own homes - they either rent them off a landlord or off a bank. It's too easy for people to try and pidgeonhole other posters into HPC or HPI camps. I'm in neither, I just want to protect my family from recession and just want to help to try and keep this forum a little balancedbetween the two extremes.

I quite enjoy the rough and tumble of the Housing Board but feel it's getting a little out of control when one can't express a different opinion from the 'gang' without having 4 or five people attack them.

Have I said "Gary Glitter should be allowed to run a children's home"? Nope, I simply said that we will all suffer to a greater or lesser degree in a recession. Hardly provocative stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.

geoffky

logie28 wrote: »

quite pathetic if you ask me,, did you copy this from the student union board???

most points invalid, tax rises pay for the running of the country, sorry i almost forgot we didn't have any of these under the Torie( poll tax, resulting in anarchy and riots) things where much better then,,,


remember this is as democratic society with a government voted in by the people, A great nation with a proud history and a bright future.

If you dont like it, new Zealand are looking for immigrants..

BTW i have lived and worked in third world countries with REAL problem, Albania in the 1990 s being one.

As a 28 year old English man i take heed of an old proverb, "you dont know your born"
look at the bigger picture, the world is bigger than your little bubble!!

28 YOUR still wet behind the ears then....i voted labour all my life but this is the worst labour goverment you could wish for.
these are a bunch of right wing scum
ps last time i counted i had been to 62 different countries so dont try and tell me about the third world...at 28 i probably had been to 35 countries:rotfl:

geoffky

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

How much is enough?

How much do you have?

I have enough to last me about 12 months if I'm careful - what happens if we have a deep recession (or depression as some are forecasting) that lasts, say, 3 to 5 years? Then what?

I will have lost all my savings that I've built up in order to secure my family's future and you will have lost all your savings that you built up for your future house purchase (or whatever your goal is). All because other people, including the government, decided not to be as prudent and frugal as us.

I'm not saying 'don't talk about a recession because you'll make it worse', I'm just saying that I don't understand how some people are so gleeful about it, especially as these people seem to have been the sensible ones who saved their money while others squandered it. The ones who have saved money will have to use their savings to keep themselves afloat, while the squanderers will just beclare bankruptcy and walk away - ready to do it all over again once the recession is over and their credit records have been cleaned.

44 and retired:rotfl:

Dithering_Dad

geoffky wrote: »

44 and retired:rotfl:

I'm a rock guitarist for a major band and I live in a mansion amongst my gold bullion and jewels.