Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

jocohen

Members
  • Posts

    380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jocohen

  1. Looks like it could be good this week, it's got Douglas Murray on the show who is a very switched on righty, then the usual scatter of lefty nut cases!

    First question is on Prisoners getting the vote, already the Bristol audience sound like a bunch of leftwing seals clapping anything, saying that Douglas Murray just got a good clap!

    Douglas Murray is just an intellectual charlatan, he devoid of any ability or cohesive or logical argument, its a real shame that he seems to be the poster boy for various conservative groups at the moment because he's quite clearly out of his depth. there are so many able speakers out there who can develop a rational argument but he's not one of them, his nick name is an apt one ..'nasty but dim'!

  2. Fair enough.

    Just a much bigger version of the low paid workers being taxed to support the career none working scroungers (who have a much bigger income!).

    I hope the worm is turning, the low earners have had enough now, all the basic needs are costing more (fuel, gas, food, insurance etc.) and wages going backwards.

    HPC is not the biggest issue now, survival on a low income is now quite worrying.

    Will 'call me Dave' now follow Merkel's example and slim that foreign aid budget? spose not.

    I think this is so true, there are far too many poorly paid people who are effectively subsidising very comfy lifestyles for professionals in 'protected 'jobs. I feel so sorry for companies who have to fork out for maternity and paternity pay. Its a great thought but when it means that doctors and lawyers can take time off for their family life it is at a cost. in those cases to the NHS or a big company, but try getting the same rights for low paid low skilled people who are in short term contract jobs or in small companies who could never ever afford such luxuries.

    Obviously maternity/paternity is an emotional issue and I repeat its a lovely idea. but there must be one that is genuinely fair and affordable.

    Also take into account there are dozens of little benefits and perks such as this and then you really realise who supports who in this nation

  3. I think I'm disappointed in todays spending review as I was hoping for something a lot more pragmatic.... something fairer and based more on 'common sense'.... something that more accurately reflects the mood of the nation.

    I'm not sure what the figures are like, but if George Osborne read out a list like the following, even the people affected would begrudgingly accept that they were necessary and fair. There would be no winners and no groups would really be singled out. Indeed, I would personally really get behind something like this.

    • 3% cuts across the board per year as a base line, no consultations, no winners, no losers;

    • Limit all public sector salaries to no higher than that of the prime minister;

    • Scrap ALL benefits for high earners or those with substantial savings;

    • Mobilise people on benefits, getting them involved in community projects;

    • Ruthlessly reduce management across the board in NHS, Councils, Police Force, protecting front line workers;

    • Increase income tax by 1p or 2p in the pound across the board;

    • Vast simplification of tax and benefit system - combining and reducing administration;

    • Wage freeze and hiring freeze across public sector;

    • Ruthlessly look for efficiencies via mergers - police forces, councils, back office services;

    • Ruthlessly look to outsource to the private sector where real value can be demonstrated;

    • Reform housing benefit and social housing;

    • A pragmatic review of 'what the state really needs to do', a national debate about how to shrink the state and its responsibilities;

    • Radical reform of the BBC, cutting back down it's public sector remit and reducing the license fee;

    • Absolutely hammer the banks who contributed to credit crunch with special levies;

    • Force non doms and tax avoiders to take a bath;

    • Government to take steps to reduce housing costs which are out of hand (OK I'm a slight VI here);

    • Adjust benefits so work always pays MORE than benefit, not the same as currently planned;

    • Unwind banking guarantees, putting more risk back onto private sector investors.

    So there's a list of 15 or so of what I think are really simple and fair changes that would add up to billions in savings.

    After months of buttering the nation up, I reckon there would be enough political will to squeeze that lot through, starting it all from next week instead of over 4 years. This would then be a good base line to start discussing further cuts next year.

    Any other 'pragmatic' cuts that you would like to see? Nothing too crazy and HPC like - just sensible things which they would get past the electorate with people accepting it as necessary.

    I like the idea of being pragmatic but there are some obvious problems. for example imposing very reasonable pay restrictions on high paid government workers such as hospital consultants and nurse managers; but i think the problem is of contracts. even if 99% of staff within an indiustry agreed you'd only need one to object and the legal costs would be tremendous.

    Same with the 'bankster' even though they have robbed us blind are so footloose they can move their business to the middle east and far east within days. banks have been an evil influence for 300 yrs but now they are biting their own home nations. i don't think we can actually get at them.

    the reality is that there are very few re\ally'poor' people in this country and so many of our problems is the 'dependency'culture and at least osbourne is attempting to confront this although the proof will be in the results rather then words

  4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575468094090700862.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEFifthNews

    More at the link.

    Our bankers will stop at nothing to make money.

    Laws simply don't apply to you and when you do get caught it's just a slap on the wrist.

    What LAWS!! american sponsered 'laws' for their own business and political interests. If europe and uk had any balls we should tell the americans to go and FO. We need to stop pandering to narrow US interests which involve hampering ourselves.

    Look at the US political vitriole directed at BP, if it was just about alleged poor practices it would be fine. But the real aim was they want to take hold of BP's commerical interest in Libya, where US companies have no hold. Similarly there are huge financial prizes in Iran and Sudan where the chinese are making hay. Who's missing out, we are.

    How many contracts did brits win in Iraq..very few if any...

    Its all about economic interest, we should starting looking after our own now our oil is all but finished.

  5. I'm in the public sector. :o Just accept me as I am, I love myself and that's all that matters I'm me and you can't be no one else yeah, I am proud to be me, I'm above your hate, etc etc

    Anyway, I'm on research council money - I won around 500K last year for my cutting edge medical research, but...

    Even though my grant money is safe, I am not allowed to recruit an essential member of my team as my research council has a freeze on recruitment! No team member, no research. So, 500K down the swanny.

    One is not amused.

    (sorry about the typo in the title)

    To be fair wasn't the money wasted as soon as it was given to you. After all Uk and 'cutting edge medical research' is a bit of an oxymoron. We are now 2nd maybe 3rd rate in terms of medical research. So shouldn't be accept that and stop wasting money on the scientists who are having a nice holiday with our tax and various charity monies

  6. London got where it was today by being an important port and trading route across the Thames. Then containerisation came in, the big ships couldn't navigate that far up stream, Tilbury was expanded downstream. London still survived. Things change. London will survive the loss of the banks, indeeds its vital unless UK wants to end up like Iceland (if it isn't all ready). The idea that the banks will repay their losses based on past income streams that more or less bust the country and created a huge asset bubble, and relied on peddling fraudulent securities is ludicrous. It will be good to see London earning an honest living again.

    How honest london is is irrelevant. All powerful cities could have been describes as moral vacuums. The cotton mills of the north made effective slaves of the rural populus that moved into the cities.

    Have any of those northern cities ever really recovered when the trade disappeared..no..they are cities dependent of handouts from london. London probably has what it takes to adapt but there are no guarantees.

    its the catch, justice dictates we would like to see the bankers 'get it' , but there is no point destroying ourselves in the process.

  7. whoa Neddy.

    JPMorgan NEEDS to be at the hot centre to GET all this business.

    You are saying they are big and thats the way they always were...No, they grew...as smaller ones will..by offering better services in the hot centre of the Universe.

    the only thing that is constant is change....trying to slow change just backfires..

    haven't you noticed for all the fine words both Paris and frankfurt are bending over backwards ( and forwards) to get these banks to relocate. Sure they introduced anti hedge funds rules which are virtually all based in london. Did they touch any of the other major regulations, not even started discussing them. Sure tweaking of a few Basel rules but nothing substantial.

    The only bank that has grown over the last 10 years ws RBS but look where they went. Of course new banks may come but what seems to happen is when a division of a bank do a particular job very well, the people in the division don't leave to form a new bank. They form small single function companies often to cream off money in a very small niche field. Ultimately leaving those banks which were in power in the late 80's post deregulation are pretty much as they were.

    Of course if we had let them go bust what you say would happen new dynamic companies may have been started. But there will be no chance after lehman of that happening, far too many vested interests!

  8. Im sorry, but JPMorgan doesnt get its new building in London has what effect on our economy??

    existing banks will get the business. We dont need a new JPMorgan building.

    The difficult thing to understand is that they do have access and control over a huge amount of business, eg mergers and acqs; ipo's; risk ; etc etc So if they are not based here the business may not necessarily go to another bank in the UK. Whatever contract work they do can be done from any office in the world. London alongside new york is the favourite place for financial types to work and live, maybe even more favoured then new york. So head offices and building do make a difference.

    JP morgan may do the work in another office anywhere in the world. That is why these institutions have so much power, they can take their business elsewhere. There are always substantial contracts which governments need doing, and its always the same banks that do it. Be it goldman or jp morgan or UBS they all want preferential treatment. And watch they will get it. But that is the catch 22 we are in we all need them, for their core work,sure their speculative work and bonuses has destroyed the western world economy but until world wide rules are made and enforced we can do nothing but sit back and watch as the bonuses restart.

    The danger which Europe is still not facing up to is that it is us in europe most at risk from this crash no the US. it is financial centres in mid east and far east taking business now, add to that India becoming more competitive only adds to our potential woes. whereas european politicians want to delude themseves that european standards of living are not about to fall.

  9. A few less parasitic banksters in the UK would not hurt the economy one bit.

    The UK should raises taxes and capital requirements on certain Bankster activities.

    The ones that add nothing to the economy, should be taxed to the Nines

    If only that were true, the financial sector has its boot to our throat. Even after the huge and repeated bailouts, we are as dependent on them as we were before.

    The term bankster is just so appropriate except that most of what they do is legal even if its morally bankrupt.

    The only advantage of the crash is that the average man in the street has realised the power of banking, so those lonely academics who have been shouting about this fo decades at least have an audience. The question is will we remember and will we actually hold our political 'masters' to account. In reality we need the american populus to do something as without their involvement anything we do will be counter productive.

    Until we realise that the core functions of banking and finance are a utility we will continue to buy into this banking con which has been destroying lives over the last 250 years

  10. I have to comment on this myth of non jobs and massive over staffing. All these folk who will not be missed when they are no longer doing whatever it is they do now. This idea that we can slash loads of jobs and this will somehow improve the economic outlook.

    When I started work in the late 70's I was with British Airways. In the run up to privatisation it was deemed that BA needed to slim down.

    Over an 18 month period the workforce was reduced from 42,000 to 24,000. That's a massive drop by any standards. Did they really have that many surplus staff?

    About 15 years later I read that BA needed to cut 10% of their workforce. 5000 staff were to go. It turned out they had nearly 55,000 employees.

    Either they went through a period of massive growth or they should never have got rid of the first lot.

    BA had also farmed out catering, ground support engineering and many other tasks leading up to privatisation so this new figure of 55,000 was for a company doing far less of the business of running an airline than before.

    Cuts will be made but to think that these jobs are not needed is wrong. The cuts are an accounting exercises and nothing more. That's all they ever were at BA and nothings changed.

    Oh, and they also attacked the airways pension scheme back then so nothing new there either.

    I'm sure some people who are cut are actually needed. But in industries I have seen: the NHS; the quangos there are thousands who do not justify their salaries. Often they may be hospital consultants who have a nice niche and may be well qualified but are paid full time for onto 18-20 hours of work a week. Or quangos whose purpose it is is just to exist and take money from governments.

    The problem is that the people who will lose their jobs first will be cleaners and maintenance staff who are needed. Noone has the guts to go after senior high paid people because of pure laziness

    Until we recognise the damage ideology has done and may do in the future we will continue to go from one extreme to another

  11. Being mooted on Radio 4 this morning.

    How much did you pay for your degree, Vince?

    Flat fees not enough to pay for your generation's promises to itself?

    Unfortunately the problem lies with labour's policies. It was their destruction of gcse and a level exam which has made them meaningless. It was the expansion of pointless university courses and people being sold a false dream.

    To add to our troubles the once great british university system has been eroded down.

    Its a great shame that this tax will have to come in. But we're the ones to blame when we believed the labour party and its agenda for social engineering and if be bought into their unfunded dreams.

  12. I'm actually back living at home now after being in rented for a while. It's not ideal because of location for my job etc but it is allowing me to save. It doesn't bother me half as much as it bothers other people. They react to it as though its something to be deeply ashamed of, or just talk to you as though you "haven't joined the real world yet"

    Yes I have

    I have savings, I work, I obey the law, I pay my taxes, I have no debt.

    How much more REAL do you want?

    its the sensible choice. families need to act as families, my daughter and son in law have been back with us as they have realised that they can save alot by rationalising heir costs. its not great for parties to admit to, but when they can afford their own place with their own money then they will be far happier

  13. This will be particularly detrimental to women (and men) who take a child break. Family friendly policy heh?

    Cut and cheesepare, we will be left with a society which favours those with inherited wealth at the cost of everyone else.

    :angry: :angry:

    the problem was that however well meaning so many of these social engineering projects were ..eg protecting women pension rights for unworked years, allowing pension plans to pass on to spouses and a whole raft of similar policies; they were all uncosted. So when we're looking at worthless pension plans we know we were all to blame when we failed to ask questions of the huge social engineering experiment over the last 13 years

  14. London's still down on 2007. Where are you classing as London?

    I live on the edge of London and it's 15% down on the peak. Central London may be peaking again, but that market is dictated by foreign buyers or buyers who that don't care about price; and the weak £ makes it look cheap.

    Your normal area is still dropping and in line with the rest of the UK.

    Its true there are large chunks of london that have been immune to the crash and will pretty well be unless something dramatic happens. The demand in suburban pretty well heeled areas such as barnet,richmond or wimbledon is always going to outstrip supply. However there are plenty of ordinary areas in between that have and will feel the crunch.

    You only have to look at birmingham and manchester to understand what sort of crash has occured and there is no change soon

  15. In post 37 of this thread, Pedro for the Fed suggests:

    Your wish is my command!

    I'll start with three (possibly four) examples for which I can cite published evidence:

    In the 27 May (no. 1,949) issue of Times Higher Education, p. 10, is a report stating that the University of Cumbria is £30m in the red and required 'advance funding' (i.e. an emergency loan) from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to pay the staff wage bill last month. The V-C has resigned in a huff claiming that he was 'mis-sold' the job, i.e. he had been led to believe that the deficit was only £2-3m, a claim that the University does not deny. The University of Cumbria was basically a bodging together of about 5-6 FE, art and teacher training colleges: its biggest campus is in Carlisle and AFAIK it doesn't face significant local competition. If it's in serious financial trouble then I shudder to think how many of the newer universities are in a similar boat.

    In the summer of 2007, Thames Valley University and two other unnamed universities were reported to be considered by HEFCE to be in serious financial difficulty. The Ayatollah has it on good authority that the other two were Leeds Metropolitan and Southampton Solent, and that all three remain basically insolvent.

    Many of these institutions are ex polys and really should never have become universities. At least if we allow these third rate bodies go bankrupt we can stop kids who are not bright enough for real universities focus on a more realistic career aim.

    This is not meant to be snobbish but these worthless unis have stopped many of our low achievers taking jobs n cleaning and agriculture where they could have developed a career just not an office based one.

  16. Isn't it hilarious seeing all these free market ideologues have a piddle in their pants over the Dubai troubles. If they can't pay their debts they're left with brilliant infrastructure

    some tacky buidlings and a bunch of companies to pick up where the old ones defaulted.

    Our stupid banks who with 'propiatary trading have lost billions in these projects will have to take it on the chin. Thats the nature of the free market baby! win some lose some.

    All these panicky statements about Dubai's lost reputation .... does any financier have one? 300 yrs of finance built on blood and suffering and they think finger wagging is going to motivate dubai to shoot itself in the head..

    .very very funny

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/6671257/Dubai-may-sell-QE2-to-tackle-debt-crisis.html

    I'm sure they'll get what for it £20m? £50m? That'll go far to settle the $80bn owed.

    Would the QE2 still be an attractive holiday for the cruising set?

  17. Your deterministic view of behaviour does not match current scientific thinking. Environment is as important in regulating behaviour as genes and genes themselves are a response to environment over time. Humans are infinitely adaptable and capable of coping with an endless variety of environemntal conditions and social models. That's why we've been so successful in colonising the planet.

    If you can back up your statements you are guaranteed the Nobel prize in Medicine. For most traits environment in an important but minor player. When was the last time we adapted out of a congenital birth defect etc

    Evolution places major constraints on us, sure we can tinker but we can see the effects of wholesale change. A massive failed social experiment. The experiment started 30 years ago and the smart money was saying this then. We have the results of the social experiment and it is disastrous, but like many dogmatic ideologues - most of those in social sciences - truth is relative...which isn't a scientific concept.

    If we break the bond between mother and child we shouldn't not complain when children grow up maladapted and socially dangerous.

  18. Another backward deluded fantasist! Your idealistic world has long gone, if you're unable or unwilling to adapt for what lies ahead then that's your problem. I'm sure the T-Rex harbored similar notions when he first saw those pesky little mammals crawling about! Or maybe the cave man who insisted that "tools are for wimps!"

    I'm sorry you find the truth hard to deal with. It may reflect badly on you or your 'partner' but thats the reality.

    Look at this thread: 25 years on encouraging people to not get married; encouraging 2 partners to work; and the end result increasingly dysfunctional children and couples now having to work just to buy some rubbish home out in chavland.

    The strange thing is is that children have lost out by not growing up with their mothers and the feminist movement have destroyed the genuine freedom and choices women had in being mothers or choosing a career. When harriet 'the idiot' harman can say all women and especially others should be at work what message is she saying: that we should all live to work.

    I am happy my children weren't bought up that way - I and my wife lived for our family and they will to for their children. It how successful families work. The 'new chavs' will just find it too difficult to have children and fortunately will be bred out ( except fot the underclass buts thats another story)!

  19. All I can say is thanks for being a realistic lady who wouldn't look down on her partner for being unemployed.

    Just as women are now widely accepted in the workplace, it's important that men are accepted in the home, without being sneered on for not being the big manly man rawwwr dragging home the mammoth carcass each day, so to speak.

    'men accepted at home'

    who are you kidding. If we're talking about real men of course not, if you can't even provide for your family you're just a piece of vermin.

    I'm surprised 'househusbands' have got enough testosterone to even get a female partner. Most men think these'househusbands' are pathetic excuses for a human. It sounds really harsh but thats what you'll find in any skilled profession or trade.

    If you want to get out there and work you can, if the children haven't got their mothers they will more then likely grow up to be dysfunctional possibly leading to an increasingly fragmented and broken society and we don't want tha...hold on I wonder whats been happening for the last 20 years!

×
×
  • 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.