Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Knimbies who say No

Members
  • Posts

    9,942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Knimbies who say No

  1. Seems the reported 50 or so Brexit impact studies will be of some significance. Govt. is resisting their release (which may be a clue as to their conclusions).

    Edit moves afoot to try and force their release:

    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/13/david-davis-faces-legal-threat-over-secret-reports-on-brexit-impact

     

     

  2. Too funny it's Shapps doing the maneouvering, lest we forget his scammy software past.

     

    Whatever the 1922 committee internal party leadership system says about minimum numbers of MPs required to hold a leadership challenge is somewhat beside the point given May's majority is well below that number. If 30 are seriously considering supporting a challenge, that ought to be enough to sink her administration. We'll see...

     

  3. 54 minutes ago, spyguy said:

    Members != voters.

    There does need some tweaking to ensure that voting areas are roughly equal. At the mo, Labour do very well, having members of parliment for distrivtis which consist of a man + dog.

     

    Sure, what I'm getting at is trying to get at is whether there exists the point at which the public pull back the curtain on the Cons and realise there is very little of substance there. An average of what, 200 members per constituency? And this is the Governing Party? Even the conference looks pretty desolate. Surely people are watching and wondering why on earth such a seemingly small group of people have control of the country?

    Greens have 45k members.

  4. 9 hours ago, Dorkins said:

    People under 35 are extremely fed up with the situation in the UK hence the rise of Corbyn, the collapse of the Lib Dems and the near extinction of the under 45 Tory voter. All 3 main parties are feeling that youth anger now.

    Kinda interesting to look at what is known about party membership figures(caveat:data from parties themselves) Lib Dems have never been higher, possibly ahead of the Conservatives now.

    From a few months ago, Lib Dems over 100k members:

    https://www.libdems.org.uk/liberal-democrats-highest-membership-local-elections

     

    Labour 570k:, Tories...? Tortes can have a minimum of 60k fully paid up members in 2016 going on £1.5M subs at £25 each, but not everyone pays the full amount. Estimates around 100k. can wait for the 2017 membership subs figures to be released

     

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/31/labour-generated-10-times-party-membership-fees-tories-2016/

     

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/09/conservative-party-membership-is-down-by-a-quarter-could-it-drop-below-100000-next-year.html

     

    Conceivable that the Tories are the third party in terms of membership, average age of a member is 71. Have we passed 'peak Conservatism'? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

  5. 9 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

    They have only known debt.

    Yes, I was chatting to a 16 year old, and a (very?) rare beast at that- an ideological conservative. Radio was on, news bulletin led with May's 'appeal to younger voters' via tuition fee freeze /HTB came up. The young person (easily smart enough to go to uni) was of the view that it was good news. I think it was just a Pavlovian response to support a Con Govt, but a little bit of me died inside regardless.

  6. 6 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

    It is funny isn't it; it's akin to holding, and showing,  a pair of tens and going all in.  I'm embarrassed that the country is led by folk who must have thought, at some stage, yeah, they'll cave in.

    We're going to be shafted, the whole brexit shebang is going to be a farce and when we leave, if we leave, we'll soon cave in and want to top back in, but this time without vetoes and also we'll have to accept the Euro.  Now for me, this is ideal, but to a brexiteer, the next few years are going to be the most disappointing they've ever had.

     

    With jumbo defined benefit pensions, no mortgages and more cash coming in than their limited imagination can handle, I'm sure the Brexiteers I know will still manage to give the impression they are pissed off with their lot in life irrespective of whatever turn of events occurs. The joie de Vivre of an abattoir to a man. Really unimpressive cohort, shame as they are all extended family members.

  7. 8 hours ago, adarmo said:

    What's the public sector equivalent of entrepreneur? Or wealth creators? 

    What's the private sector equivalent of creating a housing shortage?

    How many public sector non-job admins are there for every young student working part time in an iPhone shop?

    On the first question, My missus works in the public sector, her role is to bring private businesses in to pay to use publicly funded insanely complicated science equipment, plus the relevant academic expertise to analyse the output, to advance product development and drive costs down, and as a result, business success.

    Some businesses don't know how some of this stuff is of use until they turn up, which is not a criticism. E.g. Race teams binning wheels after x miles due to rules of thumb about longevity; with a decent light source you can examine whether there is any internal structure issue and run them much longer, or remove cracked items sooner. 

    I'm sure they all display the public sector input to their product enhancement proudly :rolleyes:

    Question 2: Buy to Let, as much as that can be described as 'private sector', rather than publically owned banks scooping housing benefits.

  8. 4 minutes ago, wsn03 said:

    That piston heads thread is interesting, I've been following it for some time. The tale of the nightmare finance experience especially so.

    When I was buying the XKR I was considering keeping some money in the bank for a safety buffer, maybe getting some finance. Because the car is 10yrs old only one option was available, very low rate. I forget how/ why but the rate they quoted didn't actually match the rate I'd end up paying - they can use and get away with certain terms that don't equal the real APR. Cut a long story short to borrow 4k I'd have paid back 8k.

    This of course was completely illogical, so I declined. However the pressure from the finance company did not. They constantly rang, emailed, texted. Add to that they focussed only on the amount I'd be paying per month. They must have some pretty thick customers. I had to explain to the guy that paying back double is crap, I'm never going to go for it. Something twigged and they left me alone.

    Its a minefield, even if it was a good deal the way the finance is handled would put me off any of these deals. I actually prefer to stick any shortfalls on a credit card and pay them off asap (good way to be motivated to clear a credit card, and you can chuck as much at them as you like).

    Seems like used finance is quite a different beast to that offered on new cars. Maybe the used market will get the ZIRP treatment to hold up nominal values, seems to be the only game in town. It ain't good is it?

  9. 14 hours ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

     UK financial watchdog investigates car loans market

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/29/uk-fca-car-loans-market

     

    The thread on this subject, over at pistonheads has been active recently :D

    Are the wheels about to fall of car finance?

    https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1662342&i=980

    Edit: ..meanwhile at the Sun

     

    Interesting, despite following this topic for a while I came to the conclusion I didn't have a good handle on the drivers (no pun intended) of the situation. PPI refunds clearly got the ball rolling but I've been surprised at how resilient sales have been in the wake of dwindling PPI refunds. I guess people simply have to find the cash, one way or another, if they need a car once on the PCP wagon and the term looms. The regular upgrades inside the original term is also something I didn't expect either.

    When searching for a car a while back I was also surprised at the poor quality of much of the offered PCP return (assumed as they are 1-3 years old) auction stock from finance houses, I guessed that this was a sign of some sort of system whereby the majority of good cars were kept on the dealer forcourts to be sold used (possibly on another PCP) while the sheds get hives off to private traders who fancy taking on a cosmetically poor newish car. Might have been ever thus to be honest. Dunno what sort of market there is for those newish tatty vehicles.

    I'd disagree with the Sun that it's certainly good time to buy used; looking at the exact spec of car my missus bought close to 16 months ago, there is a used example for sale today (15 plate, 22,000 miles) for £9,500, versus £11,700 paid for a then current 65 plate delivery mileage example. Even knocking the expected price down a bit of the used it's not clear which is better value in my mind.The Knimbies who say No

  10. 33 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

    Winter fuel is only £200 or 300 a year, also if you means test you might end giving more people pensioners credit.

    I know someone whose child benefit was going to be reduced because he earned over £50k, when he filled in the form he got a tax rebate because of charitable giving!  Means testing can mean we spend more not less.

    My missus and I were faced with the prospect of going through means testing for 'only £200 or £300' in child benefit a few years ago. Given everything that was going on, with having a new baby in the house, we simply couldn't be arsed with the forms and hassle.

    No such problems if you're sitting in the house retired and the cheques just turn up. Also gives a person a chance to complain about the queues at the bank to pay it in too, double bonus!

  11. 4 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

    I prefer the term Osbrown economics, I think it is import to remember that we are in this mess because we [not me] as a country voted for it.

    In many ways it is a shame Major lost in 97, not because Blair won (althought that was bad) nor because Major was good (he wasn't) but because it said to politicians "If house prices drop you lose your job" and they have been following that advice ever since.

    May might be one of the first for whom the message is 'if the cost of housing remains high you'll lose your job' might be apt.

  12. 42 minutes ago, Si1 said:

    You're right. And the Eton educated Cameron and Osborne, and Blair at Fettes College in Scotland. They knew exactly what they were doing.

     

    12 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

    True but until recently high house prices was a vote winner, sadly politicians prefer what is popular to what is right.

     

    I think the equality of opportunity focus was necessarily corrupted by those like who you mention simply because they know that when push comes to shove, the plebs making up the key voting blocs generally only buy into baseline Thatcherite approach while they are skint. They effect an effortless transition to the mindset of the BlaiCamBornes once they've used the level playing field to get some assets on their balance sheet. It offers the chance to live the "British Dream" of having one's lifestyle funded by others, just like posh people. And they'll be f**ked if they'll have that dream scuppered by jumped up youngsters wanting a fair go in 2017.

  13. The Thatcherite ideal is roughly (in my view) that equality of opportunity begats aspiration begats optimal outcomes.

    The biggest single item which can affect equality of opportunity for good or ill is the cost of essentials, chief among them housing.

    Drive up housing costs = more dependence on the state, increasing importance of birthrights, inheritances and degraded aspirations as things become unaffordable = poorer outcomes.

    Not rocket science, is it?

     

  14. 9 hours ago, Dorkins said:

     

    Sorry, not scared of the 1970s. My parents were twentysomethings in the 1970s. They had no problem getting work straight out of uni and they bought their first house in NW London at the age of 22. My mother left work and they raised 3 children on a single wage. No 25 year long housing bubbles leading to collapsing homeownership, no lost decades of falling real wages, no raising your family under an insecure AST with no end in sight, no sense that the main 3 parties couldn't care less about your generation.

    Exactly. The decade's worth of, what was it on average, RPI (remember that!) +5% pay rises must have been a grind.

     

    Of course, easy to look at it from the long view, perhaps the uncertainty at the time was difficult to manage, but I doubt it could be worse than today.

  15. 1 hour ago, spyguy said:

    Woogh there!

    Lending to LLs as their dumb as fck models reckons that LL are a lower risk than OO.

    Total BS. LL lending is commerical lending, which is much higher risk than a 80% LTV OO repayment.

    IO BTL is beyond fcked up and is no different to a commercial bridging loan - which norally attract IRs well north of 10%

     

    NW model - fewer LL than OO are in default than OO. Errs thats because youve never let to LL before and its IO lending where the risk sits on our books forever you stupid [email protected] IO BTL is very risky property speculation.

    From 2011:

     

    http://citywire.co.uk/money/why-nationwide-prefers-buy-to-let-landlords-to-first-time-buyers/a489252

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.