Coalition ready to let property values fall

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Anyway, as I say, you are only thinking of the crash, we had roughly a year of rises before the election. Or do these rises not count?
.

Too little too late.....

There's still too much mortgage rationing, too many people stuck in N.E., too many people unable to move because of insufficient equity, etc.

A boatload of p1ssed off people in other words, and a big reason Gordon lost the election.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Too little too late.....

There's still too much mortgage rationing, too many people stuck in N.E., too many people unable to move because of insufficient equity, etc.

A boatload of p1ssed off people in other words, and a big reason Gordon lost the election.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that of 10,000 people who wanted labour out, a VERY small minority, under 100 for instance, would sight house prices as their reason.

Infact, if they did sight house prices as their reason, it would probably have been because they were too high.

If so many people cared about house prices when it came to the election, they would NOT have voted for a party who was going to cut more, put more out of a job, and remove stimulus quicker.

Unless they are too thick to think ahead

"I know, I'm so annoyed about my house losing value, I shall kick out the party saying they will provide stimulus and jobs helping people pay for their homes, and vote in the party who says they will cut harder and quicker,putting people out of jobs".

That's genius right there

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that of 10,000 people who wanted labour out, a VERY small minority, under 100 for instance, would sight house prices as their reason.

So what reasons would pop up then that weren't apparent in the summer of 2007?

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent 13/08/2007

Gordon Brown (PA)

Bookies yesterday slashed the odds on an early general election as Labour opened up a 10 point opinion poll lead over the Tories.
It is the biggest lead since November 2002 - before the Iraq war. And if mirrored at the ballot box would add about 100 to Gordon Brown's current majority of 66.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007/08/13/gordon-brown-s-huge-poll-lead-115875-19617800/

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

More pressing matters than house prices one suspects by 2015. Jobs being very high on the list.

apparently unemployment won't be an issue by 2015.

those aren't my words but the words of the current incumbents - should we be doubting their words?

While the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) says unemployment will peak at 8.1% in 2010 and then fall to 6.1% by 2015

Degenerate

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Again, on the flip side, the only reason banks ever lose out is because people cannot pay their mortgages.

So it would be illogical to keep house prices high, havign to pay more in welfare payments, and having more people unable to afford housing, and therefore, defaulting.....then having to pay for rescue schemes yadda yadda yadda.

Sorry Graham, you're betraying your own ignorance here. Bank's balance sheet positions are directly affected by house prices. Falling house prices result in negative equity. Loans in negative equity are worth less as banking assets because they are not fully secured, ie repossession, should it be necessary, would not recover the full outstanding loan value. Even if the loans continue to perform, in the meantime the banks may find themselves in a negative asset position, in which case they are liable to be deemed insolvent, frozen out of credit markets and unable to continue operating. This is what happened in late 2008.

A drop in real terms could be accomplished by stagnating nominal values against a backdrop of moderate inflation, but a significant drop in nominal values would be seriously detrimental to the banks, the national debt, and the wider economy.

Graham_Devon

Degenerate wrote: »

Sorry Graham, you're betraying your own ignorance here. Bank's balance sheet positions are directly affected by house prices. Falling house prices result in negative equity. Loans in negative equity are worth less as banking assets because they are not fully secured, ie repossession, should it be necessary, would not recover the full outstanding loan value. Even if the loans continue to perform, in the meantime the banks may find themselves in a negative asset position, in which case they are liable to be deemed insolvent, frozen out of credit markets and unable to continue operating. This is what happened in late 2008.

A drop in real terms could be accomplished by stagnating nominal values against a backdrop of moderate inflation, but a significant drop in nominal values would be seriously detrimental to the banks, the national debt, and the wider economy.

Yer. Must be why Irelands banks are insolvent.

Oh, and the US's.

Oh, and Japans.

Degenerate

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer. Must be why Irelands banks are insolvent.

Oh, and the US's.

Oh, and Japans.

Not quite sure what your angle is here. Are you agreeing with me?

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

apparently unemployment won't be an issue by 2015.

those aren't my words but the words of the current incumbents - should we be doubting their words?

That's interesting, I thought unemployment was one of the reasons for the CE 23% drop in house prices?

Graham_Devon

Degenerate wrote: »

Not quite sure what your angle is here. Are you agreeing with me?

Nope.

I agree to an extent. But the point is, Ireland and the US have seen much bigger drops and continue to do so, in house prices.

Yet their banks are still operating.

The article talks of a 25% drop. Not a 75% drop or something of that magnitude. You slipped a sly one in about ignorance. In context of a 25% drop would not have the impact in which you suggested, as it hasn't in the US, nor Ireland.

I'd have thanked you, if it wasn't for your silly little ignorance line. I could simply throw it back at you now what with the Ireland example, but what really is the point? Hardly gonna get me a "thanks" from the little gang is it.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

apparently unemployment won't be an issue by 2015.

those aren't my words but the words of the current incumbents - should we be doubting their words?

Though as is the trend now, more people increasingly do not have full time positions. So although the numbers % wise are falling. There is a shift in underlying employment to part time work for many.