Redcellar

Guy on radio 5 said the question should be "would you push the nuclear button if required", now that would be the best question, better than should we fund Polaris. Intriguing to find the answer.

I fear you are right. What a sorry state of affairs. Voting for the least damaging of two is not something I like the sound of.

Brown, Cameron, Brown, Cameron, Brown, Cameron ..... oh yes Clegg you are there aren't you. Don't seem to be giving Clegg any interaction other than the first obligatory response. I am not a Cleggite by the way, sitting on the fence right now. But this debate seems to be run like a two horse race. Might as well have a 'Harry Hill' esque face off between the two of them.

LOL. Very clever.

Slightly off topic but, I lived in M4 (renting) for one year. Initially I loved it. Great location for nights out and many friends joined me and stayed over. BUT ... suddenly there was a spate of thefts from cars left in the 'secure' car parks underground. And it wasn't just my building, all the ones around suffered exactly the same (I had friends in them). They would rotate around the undergrounds, breaking the windows or crowbaring the doors open. Time after time after time. I was glad to leave. The problem is that when you build secure car parks you actually can make it easier for crime to be committed, or rather give them more time to make as much noise as they want in a nice sound proofed box!

That just cracked me up. Reminded me of those lovely brochures they publsihed. Excellent

It can't happen over here cos we are different init simples Bring on the bust. I wouldn't mind buying the state of Californian though. That would be cool.

I love the two obvious pitfalls: 1) "The red line may not be indicative of the true boundaries of the site and is intended as a guideline only. " So what your looking at may not even be what is for sale 2) "Suitable for redevelopment (STPP)" The price you are paying doesn't even buy you a house worth living in, and you aren't guaranteed to be allowed to build one either. So sign me up.... what a bargain.

"The BBC's business editor Robert Peston said it was a "humiliating 800-page catalogue of how they enriched themselves while the last UK-owned mass market motor manufacturer hurtled towards insolvency"." I am sure they feel totally humiliated. As they lounge by the sea on some exotic island never having to work again or even read the sub-standard beeb reporting.

So to avoid the term 'frustration' all the builder needs to do is see that a mortgage is offered that means they pay every penny they ever earn? Hence no frustration. Though if I were the buyer I might be frustrated at not eating ever again. Can't see that one working in a court though surely. It would open the flood gates. I could then buy up hundreds of houses off plan right now, and if they rise in value I make a mint. If they don't I claim frustration and walk away free. Awesome.

Iraq of course you fool.

I'm in the US and there is definately not a housing recover underway. In fact there is considerable thought it is about to get worse again. The US rules are about to make banks declare the true book values of houses they are sitting on. That means a sudden announcement of losses again. Big stuff. Plus a close friend is about to throw the keys back at the bank, so this is still going on en masse. As for the statement that where they US goes UK follows. So where is the dramatic crash, presumably we are still only part the way through before we have washed all the toxic assets out. And don't forget we leveraged ourselves far greater than the US (per head) so we should be hit much greater. I suspect the governments nudging banks to try and work it out with indebted mortgagees has helped stave off a sudden drop so far, but that has to end some time when banks realise it was all talk and now they have lost even more money by waiting.

Pity the suckers who stretched themselves ... agreed. Pity the suckers who lied. No no no. In fact I want them charged with fraud. I read a previous post inferring that was the only choice. Well its not, I didnt. People justify illegal actions based upon 'well everyone else does it'. Pathetic and its not an excuse. I'm paying my taxes and they are now being inappropriately used because thousands commited crimes of fraud. I wish we had jails large enough to house them all. Very annoyed.

LOL Perfect retort. I think C4 may have been OK if they had made a 'full and clear' statement rather than excercising selective journalism. They should have been crystal clear that planning permission was not granted and the pricing was an estimate based upon it being granted etc etc. Though with or without permission a sausage factory turned into flats is still a cheap product stuffed with all the worst bits in life not designed for a long shelf life.

But you get a free alligator with each purchase. Who wouldn't want to buy?

My thoughts were HOW MUCH!!!! Theyre having a laugh selling a death trap for that. View at own risk was hilarious. I too wondered what the neighbours think. They are about to go from semi detatched bungalow to detached, should add another £75K to their value eh?

Throwing good money after bad. Excellent just what this country needed. Just throw those nine digit numbers around folks it will all work out OK in the end. Re the earlier posts. Ellie seemed a good sport and a humerous retort, assuming being Gay is OK of course and not a put down. Masked Tullip had his moments of humour too. I just like the way the whole thing seemed amicable. What a nice bunch HPCers are

Heres a thought / suggestion. Why don't we move to the American model. The buyer uses an agent to find a place, help gain finance if needed and gets comission from the buyer I believe for doing so. Would it be illegal for 'me' to just setup a business acting on behalf of buyers. I then contact the seller directly (not via any agency they may use) and help negotiate an equitable deal? Seems like an ideal answer to me. I'd even be able to advise on properties that match your search so you don't waste time looking at lamers. Can anyone advise if this is a legal and workable business model. If it is would anyone like to start up with me

I suspect the banks would foreclose on the rental property very quickly after a few missed payments, sell it for a loss, then the individuals have to remortgage OO which will not be possible, so they are forced sellers of the OO house to cover the loss. Wipes out all mortgage payments and savings. Nice position to be in I'm sure ... not. If I were BTL I'd be cr*pping myself right about now. No way out and huge risk if you stay in, the potential profits are now far outweighed by the risk. There are much better and controlled investments to be in right now.

Northern Rock didn't make a loss. It's not possible with the recovery underway for the last four months, prices have been going up. I think all you people on here are just lying and inventing a story in the UK press just for your own gain. If house prices had declined then they would have made a loss sure, but they haven't so they must be making money on the houses they had to forclose on, not that they did that either. There are no forced sellers either, that would infer house price drops too as distressed sellers / mortgage companies sell off their assets... sorry I mean houses. House prices only go up everyone knows that. Simples. The f*cking press are incredible. Green shoots my a*se. More of this to come I guarantee. Note-disclaimer- my guarantee is covered by the government and has an unlimited pot of money (namely you the tax payer pay your own compensation).

Who bought the smaller immaculate house each time? It sounds like a good explaination but the model fails for any significant number of people doesn't it. After all it works by buying a run down house not an immaculate one. I suppose the immaculate ones could go to the renters/council tennants who then make it run down thereby sustaining the market

50 Cent .... only half as good as Dollar

He is one of a whole bunch who ran by this theory: First house is too expensive for me to make repayments so I'll get an interest only mortgage. In five years time my house will be worth lots more so then I take the equity and buy a bigger nicer house and do it all again. If I keep doing this for 25 years I should have a large portion of the mortgage paid off with me having contributed little. Kind of works that theory. Got loads and I mean loads of people into their first homes. Someone three years ago advised me to do this to get on the ladder!!!! (I didn't) Think about it though, some time the mortgage will be required to be repaid and if they haven't saved up (let's be honest they didn't, they spent it). Then they are in sh1t. It's like all those badly sold endowment mortgages some years ago, only a self suicide managed scheme. Wait until all those people need to sell. It'll be carnage.

They won't drop prices. Greed sets in and people ask for top dollar. The same people won't pay top dollar though. No they expect a huge discount on everything as its a terrible economic time out there, so I should expect to get one. Makes me laugh really. Distorted markets of any kind are always full of fools lagging the trend or falling for the falsehoods. The easiest cons are based on the same principles. You show one person winning and all the others see a game they too can only win, so everyone jumps onboard. Next thing you know hundreds of people are standing around scratching their heads as to how it was possible they lost money. I see this housing 'investment' piece as such a giant con trick.

Doesn't make sense does it? When prices rose people sold their house and used the proceeds to trade up? Er isn't the bigger house more expensive too, only even more so as its percentage increase means a bigger gap in actual ££££ Unless they mean that three years into your small home the money it has risen can be immediately pushed into a bigger mortgage so you maintain a measley 5% deposit but have a way bigger mortgage. Don't get it. Can someone please explain.