patprimer74

I give up!!!!!!! I'm just going to have a look at the Economics board to read about the coming House Crash! p

These lazy people on the dole - would you like them to be forced, against their will, to work in an old peoples' home, perhaps looking after your mother? Or, how about packing meat in a factory which supplies your supermarket? I wouldn't be keen on either idea. p

So, what happens to it? p

Got it one! p

"...people coming over here from europe..." - So, what continent are you on? "... 'immigrants' & people coming over here..." - Is there a difference? p

So, economics wasn't your favourite subject in school! What d'you think happens to Sterling that's taken outside this country? Either, it's used to purchase exports from the UK - creating jobs etc. etc. Or, a tourist buys it to use when visiting this country - again, creating jobs etc. etc. Eventually, it's used in the UK even if it passes through numerous hands in the meantime. Sterling doesn't disappear off the face of the earth just because it's taken abroad. (In fact, if it did, the Bank of England would be laughing because all those notes wouldn't be presented for exchange!) p

What's your problem with outsourcing? Or, is it off-shoring? If you don't like the service, just leave them. The reason can't be economic, so the only two reasons I can think of are nationalism or racism. p

Quite so ! BW. There really are some cretins about who think that by their puny actions they can have an effect on the price of a world-wide commodity - oil. They also suffer from chronic amnesia, because they can't remember the scheme which the Tories left this government which was to raise the Fuel Tax at a rate faster than inflation. At least Gordon Brown stopped that Tory nonsense. In any case, what are we supposed to do? Prepare for the big day by buying before the event? Or, will we just fill up with the same amount on the day after? Where were these people when brains were being handed out? On their day off? The oil companies won't suffer at all. p

Mortgagees in possession have no choice but to cover themselves against any claim that they 'gave the property away'. The owner/mortgagor cannot, now, claim that the agents/mortgagees sold the house without first checking that this was the best offer available. Its standard practice. p

There seems to be quite a lot of misinformation on the subject of pensions. It's quite simple, really. Individuals and/or their employers have to invest large amounts of money over many decades to produce the absolutely enormous lump sum that's needed to buy the 'annuity' that'll give a reasonable income for a very long retirement. It's not rocket science! Those people who can't or won't do this - perhaps choosing instead to overpay for their houses or spend on other, less necessary, things - have to face the reality that the result is poverty in old age. The money can't just be prodced from thin air. The State Pension, which is, of course, financed from current government income (not from an imaginery lump sum that we've each built up) can only be a relatively modest fallback. By the way, before anyone starts spouting on about it, Gordon Brown's slight change to (was it the Advance Corporation tax position on dividends) pension funds has only a miniscule effect on pensions. The market-driven fall in share prices has had the greater effect and the choices made by individuals not to make any effort to build up that required 'nest-egg'. So, do we all wait 'til we're of retirement age and then say 'Where's my pension?' or do we set up some sort of system whereby people are, effectively, forced to save for their old age? An interesting subject. p

Firstly, you won't witness anything that could be described as a 'crash' i.e. a sudden and exceptional drop in prices. The whole thing drags on & on & on & on...Different people come to realise at different times that things have changed. Sellers hang on 'just a little bit longer' because 'the market's bound to turn soon; it always does, doesn't it?' Buyers, too, hang on, longer and longer, because they're genuinely concerned that they're jumping in at the wrong time. While in a rising market, everyone is concerned not to be left out of the action and rushes to buy, in a slowing/declining/dropping market people act, not unnaturally, in exactly the opposite way. Why rush? So, gradually, you will start hearing sad stories of people - perhaps ones you know and care for - who face unpleasant decisions regarding their housing. Do they accept a very low offer and 'lose' tens of thousands of pounds on their 'investment'? Now that they're in negative equity, do they sit it out or do they take the keys round to the building society and say 'Sod It!'? Has all the time and effort and money that's been spent on their house come to nothing? It's not pretty. But. What if you're a renter and sitting there with a big deposit? Now you're talking! p

"...a fine old British Car company." ! My @rse! BMC, British Leyland, Rover - same company, same lame duck. It failed to make cars that people wanted to buy and should have been allowed to die, decades ago. Being British means nothing if you're useless at what you do. Good riddance. Lets use the resources - including the human resources - for better things. p

You may be right, CB, but was he effective? No, he was not. Labour have just been re-elected for a third term with a whacking 60+ majority that most political leaders would die for. Michael Howard brought the Tory Party up to (yes, 'up to') the level that the Labour Party reached in the 1980's under Michael Foot! Having said that, I have some sympathy for Michael Howard and all the many recent Tory leaders. It really isn't the leadership that's the problem - it's the party itself. What is it for? What possible reason would someone vote for it other than as a protest vote against another party? It's a thing of the past and is unlikely to survive - especially in its present form. p

Tomorrow morning, when we get the confirmation of the total failure in the General Election of the BNP, UKIP, Tories & NF (i.e. all the Extreme Right Wing mob) the main reason will be the brainless xenophobia exhibited by their dense leaders and supporters. And, it'll bl@@dy well serve them right. Their hatred and nastiness belong to the fringes of this democracy and they have no right to expect the civilised electorate to give them much support. And, they will receive very little. Thankfully. p

I couldn't disagree with you more. It's absolutely normal for migrants not only to congregate together with their own countrymen but to continue to use their mother tongue as their main language. I could give you lots of examples of communities in the US who, for generations, have lived their working and social lives amongst their ethnic group. That does not make them any less American and it certainly doesn't mean that they don't have the right to take part in democratic elections. The next thing you'll be saying, I suppose, is that the British migrants who went to the US, Australia, India, South Africa, etc. should have learned and used the native languages of those countries? Otherwise, they should not have had any political rights. I assume you wouldn't admit it, but your suggestion just shows your objection to anyone other than the pure British Aryan race having any part to play in British life.

Making a loss or a profit doesn't come into it. The price that TMJ paid for the place has no relevance, and certainly no effect, on the price that it can now be sold for. It may well be, psychologically, a less comfortable exercise i.e. to sell at a loss, but it should have no influence on whether TMJ should accept a particular offer. Who said that life would be easy?? p

That's quite possible. But, you're assuming that a lender would not insist on a personal guarantee from the individual as additional security (collateral) for the loan to the limited company. At a guess, it is something they'd certainly consider if the margin wasn't very large. (Or, of course, in an uncertain market such as this one.) Believe or not, they're not stupid. p

Gruff, I really do trust that you're right. Can you just give us the details of the basis of your calculation of a +40% crash. I'm sure you've got evidence and calculations to back up your claim. Otherwise, people might just think that your picking figures out of the air. But, I'm sure that's not the case. So give us all the details! p

The opinions offered at this topic are about as infantile as I've ever seen. To describe them as fascist is to treat them with a seriousness they don't deserve. They are the bitter rantings of cretins who choose to believe the disgusting, lying filth pouring out of the Mail and their friends daily. They have no evidence to back their ridiculous assertions but that may explain who they shout their views so loudly. Thankfully, we needn't worry about them because once this election is over they'll return to their rat-holes for another spell. We can then thank them for the massive contribution they've made to Labour's re-election. As the British public see, daily, the 'foreigners' claptrap that Howard is using to try and frighten them they move, in their droves, over to Labour. At the current rate, Labour will have a bigger majority than the last two elections! Lab - 40%, Con - 30% ! Overall majority? About 150-160. Keep shouting, cretins. p

Your dead right in everything you say lauriejon. Spot on. No doubt about it. Just ask those people in white coats standing around you - they'll tell you your right too. p

TM, Do you have a similar explanation for all the other elections that have been called early over the last few decades? Or do you think this is only something done by New Labour? (I think you'll find the record shows that it's perfectly normal to go to the country at between three and a half and four and a half years. So, lets all offer reasons why all those Tory PM's went to the country early!) p

So, you fancy a really long spell in the Tower, d'you? p

What are you trying to get at? Explain your hypothesis. What is it based on? Or are these just the rantings of another Daily Mail-reading xenophobe? p

And, why shouldn't it? p

Well, it's come from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be able to lend it to you! Could they? Unless, of course you think that financial institutions don't have to balance their books and can just pretend that they've got the funds (either their own or depositors or lenders). p