We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Historical evidence of London moving into bubble & dragging rest of UK with it
Comments
-
As you would seem to have the figures available, would you share them with the rest of us?
Also, I seem to recall that lending without sufficient care and attention became viewed as a very, very bad thing a few years ago. Are you in favour of banks lending to riskier propositions than they currently do (with the inherent risks) or not?
1) f**k All relatively
2) Yes, banks should be forced to invest a percentage of their money to small businesses that are involved in certain sectors that are important to our economy to grow. That simple rule across the board would make the world a better place.Proudly voted remain. A global union of countries is the only way to commit global capital to the rule of law.0 -
1) f**k All relatively
2) Yes, banks should be forced to invest a percentage of their money to small businesses that are involved in certain sectors that are important to our economy to grow. That simple rule across the board would make the world a better place.
why don't you support tax payer funded banks to support small businesses?
any loses won't matter as the tax payers will fund this or of course if the small business flourish there will be profits for the tax payers0 -
Apologies, I probably should have made the second part of my post clearer. I meant opportunities for independent (ie, without BOMAD) home ownership for young people in London. Prices increasing faster than wages by definition makes this harder, and is, from a social perspective, a very bad thing.
In terms of the first part of my initial previous post, the problems around social cohesion are fairly obvious to anyone visiting large parts of London. It's also very clear that insecure housing is a big part of the problem, and that rising prices contribute to this issue for many people.
do you mean that immigration is bad for social cohesion?
and that home ownership for young people in London is adversely affected by immigrants?
what sort of actions do your recommend?0 -
I don't see what the obsession is with London. 63million + people in the UK and counting. Not even 10 million of them live in Greater London. As for all the work being in London, have you ever been on the M25 in the morning, following the vast sea of cars west to Bracknell, Basingstoke and the like? Not all work is in London. Even for Londoners.
Who cares what the price of housing is in London if you want to buy in Bristol/Cardiff/Glasgow/Edinburgh/Belfast/any other great city in the UK?
The people who are buying, say, in Bath, or Bournemouth, aren't usually looking to buy in London and vice versa. To me, property markets are very local. I live and work in Edinburgh. If I was looking for a property, I wouldn't consider Glasgow, even though it's only just down the road, not even 50 miles away and less than an hour's commute.0 -
why don't you support tax payer funded banks to support small businesses?
any loses won't matter as the tax payers will fund this or of course if the small business flourish there will be profits for the tax payers
When did I say I didn't ? You've had too many whiskeys. I don't care how it happens really as long as more money is invested more towards innovation and less towards trading existing houses.
The tax payer pays for loads of things with terrible outcome chances. Probation workers, fat policemen, welfare state, gold plated pensions for pen pushers, overseas wars and boob jobs on the NHS.
Supporting small businesses to create more interesting and better paid jobs instead of the rest of the junk that's bought in the name of the tax payer is a no brainer.
I would like the banks to made to do there bit too though, naturally.Proudly voted remain. A global union of countries is the only way to commit global capital to the rule of law.0 -
When did I say I didn't ? You've had too many whiskeys. I don't care how it happens really as long as more money is invested more towards innovation and less towards trading existing houses.
The tax payer pays for loads of things with terrible outcome chances. Probation workers, fat policemen, welfare state, gold plated pensions for pen pushers, overseas wars and boob jobs on the NHS.
Supporting small businesses to create more interesting and better paid jobs instead of the rest of the junk that's bought in the name of the tax payer is a no brainer.
I would like the banks to made to do there bit too though, naturally.
What about the banks' fiduciary duty to their shareholders?0 -
1) f**k All relatively
2) Yes, banks should be forced to invest a percentage of their money to small businesses that are involved in certain sectors that are important to our economy to grow. That simple rule across the board would make the world a better place.
So you don't have the figures then, and you want a rule that will make banks lend even when they don't think that it's safe to do so?
That's idiotic.0 -
In the case of RBS I believe the government (taxpayers) make up over 80% of the shareholders. They should be able to do whatever they like with it.
No, they should not. We quite rightly have very strong rules to stop minority shareholders interests being ignored by the majority owner.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the majority holder to take economically unjustified decisions that will harm the company.0 -
Buy out the other 15% and use RBS as a state run investment vehicle to promote small businesses then. Any losses or profits go to the treasury.No, they should not. We quite rightly have very strong rules to stop minority shareholders interests being ignored by the majority owner.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the majority holder to take economically unjustified decisions that will harm the company.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards