The election 2015

If that's your argument, Art, why just shackle the housing market?

Why not clothing, or fuel, or food Markets too? Why manufacture a cap on the housing market alone, when you could shoot-for-the-moon and a zero-inflation nirvana? A "Never mind the quality, feel the width" paradise?

I'm being glib, of course, but I don't see why the housing-industry (and all the related markets that entails) should be penalised in this manner.

Remove incentive, those of an enterprising nature will simply vote with their wallets, and seek to do something more productive/rewarding - with any gap in Housing supply created by this flight of enterprise, merely making existing properties carry more material value - which would rather defeat your intended purpose.

Prior to 2008, the ready availability of undue credit facilitated a very particular housing-boom. These days, you have to provide collateral before they will even look at your mortgage application. This is further evidence (imo) of a self-correcting market - one where means-to-repay plays a much greater part now, than it has at any point in the last 20 years.

These factors suggest to me that regulation would be both unnccessary and retrograde.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
cameron should apologise for the miners and thatcher.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Cameron, he did apologise for Thatcher once before in the field of foreign affairs. Let's see if he'll aopologise for Edward Heath in domestic affairs shall we?
 
Grasshopper said:
If that's your argument, Art, why just shackle the housing market?

Why not clothing, or fuel, or food Markets too? Why manufacture a cap on the housing market alone, when you could shoot-for-the-moon and a zero-inflation nirvana? A "Never mind the quality, feel the width" paradise?

I'm being glib, of course, but I don't see why the housing-industry (and all the related markets that entails) should be penalised in this manner.

Remove incentive, those of an enterprising nature will simply vote with their wallets, and seek to do something more productive/rewarding - with any gap in Housing supply created by this flight of enterprise, merely making existing properties carry more material value - which would rather defeat your intended purpose.

Prior to 2008, the ready availability of undue credit facilitated a very particular housing-boom. These days, you have to provide collateral before they will even look at your mortgage application. This is further evidence (imo) of a self-correcting market - one where means-to-repay plays a much greater part now, than it has at any point in the last 20 years.

These factors suggest to me that regulation would be both unnccessary and retrograde.
Click to expand...

precisely. It's complete nonsense.

you are not being glib . It is precisely the same argument

government interventions in functioning free markets is pointless and if you try to control prices across the board or even in certain areas you kill supply as we have seen in the socialist disaster Venezuela

if houses were set a price lower than market value then housebuilders slow down building Isn't that obvious? They would use the land for commercial property or just sit on it as a balance sheet asset waiting for the lunatic policy to be abandoned. Conversions would dry up too

the argument that the government should set the price of my house is absurd . Quite clearly after time I would have an enormous demand when selling but be comoletely hamstrung. Lunacy. Best bidder would be the price plus a bmw the. Wouldn't it?

soem fcking civil servant valuing my house. Fck off

ist been fully explained why houses appreciate in value . As any economist will tell you (rolling his eyes probably) the prices are a reflection of available ability to buy. Allied to the supply Ie cash and credit. The credit is working fine because repossessions are still very low so ability to service the debt is nailed down. And if there is too much credit and repossession the market adjust. As it has in Las Vegas say where tehre was a glut of repossessions but prices are back to where they were
 
Last edited:
BennyB said:
Funny how the left are happy to use the ONS stats to show that we are no better off over the past few years, then the same people refute the use of the same stats to show that we are massively better off than in 1970.
Click to expand...

Also how anyone can ignore the stats is beyond me . It's like disputing inflation figures or trade deficit. They clearly haven't ven bothered to look at what the ons is about and why it's credibility is absolutely key

the left is a mess . Clueless
 
Last edited:
I think the discussion would have more value if clivex, bennyb and grasshopper all gathered in a circle and wanked each other off, for all the attention they are paying to the valid points being made by the other side. Perhaps they could use the resultant issue for a jolly good game of soggy biscuit.
 
Every point made by the otwhe side has been disexted and killed stone dead. Answered head on , screwed up and tossed into the garbage . Both by stats and force of argument . Not even difficult given that they are clear economic facts which only a nutter would dispute . Even the daftest Russell brand clone wouldn't argue some of the nonsense we've seen here . Read the thread

i don't recall you saying anything of any value or interest whatsoever.
 
simmo said:
I think the discussion would have more value if clivex, bennyb and grasshopper all gathered in a circle and wanked each other off, for all the attention they are paying to the valid points being made by the other side. Perhaps they could use the resultant issue for a jolly good game of soggy biscuit.
Click to expand...

Beautifully and delicately put.

I repeat my question, is it a good thing for the economy/society that house prices should continue to appreciate indefinitely rather than merely hold their value?
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
Beautifully and delicately put.

I repeat my question, is it a good thing for the economy/society that house prices should continue to appreciate indefinitely rather than merely hold their value?
Click to expand...

how many times does that have to be answered?

once again... The economy drives house prices not the other way round so it's pretty clear that it's inly achievable with a flat zero growth economy. Is that good for "society"? I don't think many would vote for that.

the other suggestion. of price controls has been demolished. Completely unworkable
 
Actually I dont believe the Heath thing at all. His biographers have quickly come out and said there has never been the slightest hint of it. Its generally reckoned he was probably gay but looked without touching. And i dont mean he stood there knocking one out outside the school gates either
 
clivex said:
Actually I dont believe the Heath thing at all. His biographers have quickly come out and said there has never been the slightest hint of it. Its generally reckoned he was probably gay but looked without touching. And i dont mean he stood there knocking one out outside the school gates either
Click to expand...

when the Jimmy Saville thing came out..Look North wheeled out one of his best friends ..they had spoken to this same guy when Saville died...in the first week when folk were umming and arring if it were true or not...this guy appeared a couple of times...vehemently denied it was possible for any of the accusations to be true...after a few more accusations registered..this guy has never appeared on telly again

what do you think his biographer is going to say?.."oh yes i saw him dickie back riding kids regular..just thought it were a tory MP thing so i never said owt"

personally i'm not sure either way..but folk denying it on his behalf is always going to happen
 
Last edited:
the biographers have the option of saying nothing and they are completely impartial. they are serious biographers and do not write fan books. Its a different matter altogether i believe and i believe that the fact they came forward to defend him is significant
 
it could be viewed as distancing though Clive..no one wants to be thought of as being the biographer of someone who it might turn out to have been paedoing..for a start ..if true ...it doesn't say much for your biographing skills if in all your research you didn't get wind of it. Then again, they might be correct..who knows?

like i said..i'm not sure..i think a story like this would have come out the day after..not years after. He could be just be a red herring thrown to the dogs by the lodge to defer interest from some living ones that are still getting away with it.

Its funny though how generally the people accused of this stuff..sometimes falsely.. are put through the wringer whilst still alive..and yet when its a Tory highflyer ..they are dead uns...funny that really...bit of a pattern developing over a period of time. Saville did well really to keep the protection going just long enough to die before he got slung to the dogs...he may as well have been a tory MP with the time he spent socialising with em.
 
Last edited:
Wont go on about this but the two biographers in question, Campbell and Zielger are the best in business. The research would have been massive and took years. Neither would cover up for him
 
clivex said:
Wont go on about this but the two biographers in question, Campbell and Zielger are the best in business. The research would have been massive and took years. Neither would cover up for him
Click to expand...

i never mentioned anything about covering up for him.

Like said...weighing up what we know..it looks unlikely rather than likely its true..we'll find out i suppose.
 
Last edited:
Corbyn is on drift again. I think his awful dinosaur rhetoric this week might be rebounding.
 
The fact we need public services goes without saying, i'd be hopeful a moderate labour candidate would be putting forward those arguments rather than necessarily needing Corbyn to spell it out.

Kids Company creator said today her service was under pressure from rising mental health clients or users. This is an example of where the government is pushing everything, including vulnerable people, onto charities.

I don't like it one bit, and again, it shouldn't be for 'hardcore whacky lefties' like Corbyn to tell people why this is a wrong policy.

Cooper is slightly underrated imo and has room for improvement if becoming leader.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
the biographers have the option of saying nothing and they are completely impartial. they are serious biographers and do not write fan books. Its a different matter altogether i believe and i believe that the fact they came forward to defend him is significant
Click to expand...

They are not the slightest bit impartial.

They have books to defend - ones that may have extremely large gaps in the narrative of Heath's life, thereby devaluing their tomes to something akin to worthlessness. Besides, as EC1 says (there you go, pal :D), this thing was locked-down from the very-top for decades - if it's true, Heath's co-perps are hardly going to open up to his biographers about his peccadilloes, are they?

I think it's possible, though will wait until there's more substantial evidence before I make my mind up.
 
Last edited:
Absolute rubbish. I have read Campbell's and zeiglers bios of thatcher and wilson as well as Campbell's on Heath. They could easily have said yes there were rumours but clearly I couldn't publish such insinuations without proof or coorberation

frankly the books were not widely about their personal lives anyway and they have nothing to lose by missing out tittle tattle. Not only that they are two of the finest political biographers in the world. They are not building reputations in the slightest.

Campbell is not a Tory I'm certain.
 
Last edited:
They couldn't even consider including anything if they didn't know about it, you fu*cking dipsh*it.

:D
 
Last edited:
If there was anything in it Thatcher's mafia would have made sure it got out.....unless he had the inside line on Lord Lucan.
 
Back
Top