Scooter
-
Posts
1,000 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Scooter
-
-
I think there is truth to this, but Exeter at least has had a steady influx of immigrants too, and also had the MET office move there with 1000 workers and presumably some growth in support services. In places like Tiverton there is also growth of immigrant population into some of the jobs that white people don't want to do.
The mother of a friend of mine manages a poultry processing factory and has had criticism for employing them, but she'd tried to get locals previously with no success. Not that the wages were so bad, but that there is a snobbery about the work, mostly from Chav scum who are more likely to degrade the poor animals they would process than the other way round.
Also got to remember that there's a large black and Asian population in Bristol. Lots of Yardie crack dealers from Jamaica impregnating white trash to get the right to stay (it was a Chav fashion for a while it seems), but also a pretty decent general population too, and I think the diverse wonders of the **** shop are a well established part of british life for most people. I'd miss them if I went so far SW it was traded for the village shop with some fat, curly haired, red faced old bitch talking ****** to the vicar about her cat or whatever, while keeping you waiting as though it's their god given right, and a duty, to impose their own pace of life upon all others. Part of the service.
Got a lot of white trash too. Particularly in Exeter, where there is a big booze culture, worse than Bristol, and a fair bit of dropping out to "av a baybee" too, like that was the cure to their apathy, meaningless and utterly futile existence.
The main problem in this country is that welfare has become a surrogate father, discipline has become a dirty word, rights are everywhere, responsibility is a joke, the weak, lame, crippled, retards, and various other deficiencies are the key to bleeding dry everything healthy and successful, stupidity is learnt (in school) to be advantageous in acceptance by others, various herd mentalities are paramount (football, drinking, discussing the events from Big Brother), and those that in another era would be caught and eaten by lions are subsidised in their rutting to displace the demographics towards the inferior and idiotic and multi-generational unemployed. Welfare should mean contraception and community service.
Oh, and this is a WHITE creation. Bird flu is an Asian one, I pray that it gets imported to clean up this mess - in the absense of un-natural selection that might actually advance the race, I'd settle for natural selection to disrupt the current un-natural selection that favours the inferior. I'm not asking for certain German policies to be revisited, just incentives to do well, advance the culture/race/civilisation, and the chance to be able to AFFORD to breed and do this, rather than being continually screwed for tax to support the scum that hate everything good that comes of intellect, effort and patience.
Jeez, should set up a misanthropy forum - chavpopulationcrash.co.uk or something... rant over.
Already been done mate:
-
-
I could not agree more. A sexual co-habiting relationship is a serious matter and it should not be entered into unless the couple are committed to it for life--marriage.
I suppose shacking up with someone for benefits other than a lifelong unconditional committment is a form of prostitution. It used to be called "fornication" or "adultery" if one or both of the parties is married to someone else other than the co-habitee. Maybe we are returning to more old-fashioned rules to live by.
Who are you-the Archbishop of Canterbury? No sexual cohabitation unless intending to stay together for life? What a ludicrous statement. Most people are unlikely to even know whether they want to spend their life with someone until they have lived together for a while. That is probably why 50% or more of marriages end in divorce. What a load of sanctimonious twaddle...
-
deliriously funny that wasn't
just so you know you aren't forgotten mate.
-
"I get the impression that you were expecting the usual HPC group-hug from fellow believers when you started this thread".
mmm, well I know I wouldnt bother hugging YOU!!. Why people bother living in London anyway bewilders me.
The Dud is back-the midget she-male lives!
-
I could be wrong, but was Apom partly pointing out the major difference between the yields in the London flat (6%) and the Exeter house (3.3%). Neither are great, but the London example is closer to being at an equilibrium if you accept that way of calculating value. If that's a wider pattern (which to a degree I think it is) it would imply that London is less overpriced than elsewhere. Still overpriced but not by such a large degree.
No idea. I thought it was pointing out that the yield was relatively low and probably less than the cost of a mortgage , upkeep and voids but who knows?
-
Two examples.
Studio flat Kensington £160,000 rent for £800
Four Bed town house Exeter £360,000 rent for £1000
Sustainable levels can be argued.
But there is a point above which an investment really is not paying for itself.
There is point where there is a high risk
And there is a point where you would have to be shot for levels of stupidity.
I must be writing in Swahili mate-I said I already know why prices are unsustainable at some point in London. But right now, they seem to be sustaining themselves, at least in my neck of the woods, NW3. There are and always have been stupid investors. The end of the world may come but not quite yet.
-
Again, nothing constructive.
Well done!
If you had bothered to read my posts, I said I was a bear, hence I think that London prices are unsustainable, hence I agree with you, so what exactly are you expecting me to prove? Put your toys back in the pram and buy yourself and icecream...
-
Have you added anything constructive as to why current prices are sustainable in London?
Then we'll grade your economics.
No. All I did was reply to rather vague "my anectdotal is better than yours" comment, find mild amusement in your very defensive "you people" comment and then receive a very patronising GCSE economics lecture. Like I said, I don't need it. I know exactly why prices are unsustainable at some point in London (it is pretty obvious to most people on the forum I suspect) and see no reason to go over old ground yet again. You sound particularly snide and a bit pissed off but that is hardly my fault or problem.
-
this posted on singing pig by "Yocheved"
Hi all,
Do you think I can be successful in this game??
I have a tremendous desire to get onto the property ladder by buying just one property. I am married (woman) with 3 kids age 1,2 and 3, I live in rented accommodation and have personal debts of aprox. £4000. My husband earns £20000 a year as a teacher which is what we live on. I am self-employed, and can work as much/little as I want, depending on my mood! I don't drive, so find it quite difficult to go gallivanting round the UK looking at properties! I am very knowledgeable in my area (which is London) so I know instantly if I have a bargain or not, however London is quite above my budget at the moment!
Ideally, I would love to buy a (small) property, value approx 50k - 80k. Location - anywhere (NE, Scotland, etc) however should be good rental location. VERY ideally, it should be somewhat bmv, so I can remortgage and get a no-money down deal. Yield should be high-ish, so that it coveres mortgage plus a bit extra (or even if it just covers the mortgage.) The reason why I want something under 100k is because I know that I can cover the mortgage (through earnings from my work) even if I have voids. What concerns me least at the moment is Capital Growth because I am buying this for long-term investment.
How I plan to raise the deposit? If I can't get a no-money down deal, then I plan to borrow. Before you all yell at me: I find it very difficult to Save money - there is always something coming up for the money to go on! However If I have a debt hanging on my head, I have the impetus to pay it back, therefore I'll work extra-hard and make do with less! BTW my personal debt was £8000 in Jan 06 and now it's 1/2, and according to my reckoning I should be debt-free in September 06.
She is apparently "very knowlegeable in my area..London". Big place that London!
-
It's funny, isnt it?
The VIs and Fat Jocko have jumped thru HOOPS to keep the plates spinning, and have actually managed to produce a 'triple top' on one of the graphs.
To keep that running much longer is obviously now impossible. Don't know why they bothered really.
Bit like furiously shovelling sand while the tide rushed in. No amount of plastic buckets and sweat can stop the tide. "No Sea here! Move on! We're all perfectly dry! Glug! Glug!"
Been fun to watch though!
The crash is now well and truly underway.
I wish it was underway. But it isn't yet in my opinion.
-
Look at the recent events in the world stock markets.
The FTSE peaked around 6100 and has since gone down to around 5600 - 5750
Why?
Because sentiment changed. Suddenly the markets saw things ahead they didn't like, inflation etc. Stocks markes are very liquid, prices can move very quickly, houses are very illiquid - prices don't move very quickly.
Stocks are an asset as are houses - house prices are sticky and prices changes and market direction are hard to pick up in 'real' time. What you have to do, like you would do if you were picking stocks is look ahead - what are prices likely to in the future and why? if you look ahead then there are plenty of reasons for house prices to come down but very few (any?) for prices to go up further.
Thanks for the GSCE economics lesson but I can assure you I do not need it.
-
I don't disagree with you - it is subjective however there are degrees of subjectivity.
For example - 'property is selling quickly and prices are rising' based on Sold signs is far more subjective than saying 'My uncle actually knows somebody that developed a house, for sale at £170K and is still on the market after 6 months and next door has been reduced and only sold at £135K'
See what I mean?
So Frank Knight, possibly the biggest EA of premium property in London saying that the influx of money buying up the premium properties at £4M+ has gone is not relevant.
Oh and lets not forget that the last 3 years have been pretty good for the financial markets, the other driver of London house prices in bonuses, high paid jobs etc. Think things are going to be as good there over the next few years?
You people are a joke. Shame you won't be found at this site when prices are falling to engage in discussions about how wrong you got it.
Not sure about the "you people" bit-it all sounds a bit Alan Partridge to me. I am a bear who wants a crash but I see few signs in London apart from property remaining unsold at sticky prices. I wish it was different but from where I sit it is not.
-
To be honest the point of this post isn't about whether house prices are rising or not. If they are, which I doubt in most areas it will be very shortly lived. I'm not concerned about the constant ramblings on this site about peoples perceptions of how many For Sale or Sold signs there are and if a house is asking £10K more this year then 'house prices are rising'. It's all too subjective. I've got plenty of my own anecdotal evidence and it doesn't give a clear picture although I'd say it's mostly negative and doesn't support the view that prices are rising. I'm not concerned with looking at hear and now, I'm looking ahead, looking at what might happen.
And I see absolutely nothing that will sustain high house prices here. There are so many risks now that one of them surely has to act as the trigger at some point.
enworb - it would be a bit more useful if you said where you live and why you percieve that prices are rising there?
Why is your anectdotal "evidence" any less subjective than anyone else's experience of sold or for sale signs or asking prices?
-
I worked for The Times as a writer and "shadowed" at Channel 4 before that. I originally wanted to be a journalist, but changed my mind when I saw how un-creative the job is.
It always amuses me when I read conspiracy theories about journalists and editors conspiring to put out a "line" in their publications. While there may be some nudging of the ship at a high level, the really primary concern of editors and proprietors is to sell as many papers/get as many viewers as possible. Everything else is secondary. If that means pandering to prejudices etc., then so be it.
As for the journos, they are under such pressure to produce copy that anything they can get away with will do. Genuine, thoughful journalism is the preserve of a very few people, more likely in specialist publications or think-piece writers, who research for the love of it or because they have that status. But the vast, vast majority simply take what they're given by PA feeds/marketing releases etc., and churn out as much as possible in the shortest possible time.
Don't look to the media for intelligent analysis of anything - think for yourself.
Put it this way - when you read a piece in the newspaper think: "what would happen to the jounalist if she were wrong?". If she wrote about a man on trial for murder as "definitely guilty" she would be prosecuted; if she writes about the housing market, no one will ever ever call her on it.
I found that journos in the national, international and trade press (financial services) have almost always happily let me write their articles for them, to my benefit, as a result of the deadlines you refer to and also laziness I suspect.
-
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservi...1791100,00.html
Brown calls for public sector pay freeze [ Tuesday June 6, 2006 ] Larry Elliott, economics editor
Chancellor says two more years of low settlements are necessary
Gordon Brown last night put the government on a collision course with millions of public sector workers when he called for a three-year pay freeze as part of the fight to control inflation and cut the budget deficit.
In a speech designed to show he would not slacken the pace of New Labour reform as the likely successor to Tony Blair, the chancellor insisted this year's 2.25% pay deals would be the start of a prolonged period of belt-tightening.
Mr Brown showed he was willing to risk antagonising the unions in an attempt to position himself for the political struggle with David Cameron. Aware that the Conservatives are seeking to depict him as a "roadblock to reform", he urged the break-up of national pay bargaining, supported the case for replacing Britain's nuclear power stations, called for a "quicker, more flexible and more responsive" planning system and held out the prospect that he would bow to demands from business for lower corporate taxation.
The chancellor told the CBI, the employers' organisation: "On pay, we must do more to encourage local and regional pay flexibility. And with this year's public sector pay settlements averaging just 2.25% we are maintaining vigilance in the fight against inflation - and next year and the year after that we will maintain this discipline of low overall settlements."
A spokeswoman for Britain's biggest union, Unison, said: "Any attempt to artificially keep down pay in the public sector will only lead to bad feeling as workers see pay in the private sector overtaking them year on year."
The comments come ahead of a speech today by Tony Blair in which he will warn frontline staff in London that public services will have to become "radically better" to justify increased investment.
The prime minister will re-enter the fray over his contentious health and education reforms by insisting that the public will lose faith in the government's ability to improve services unless they see changes, including increased involvement by the voluntary and private sectors.
Mr Brown said last night: "We will continue to reform our public services: matching national objectives with other drivers of change - competition and contestability and local choice and voice, including publicly available real-time data across the key public services."
Relations between the government and business have cooled over the past couple of years but Mr Brown told the CBI: "On tax, just as we have cut long-term capital gains tax, corporation tax and small business tax, we will continue to to look with you at the business tax regime."
Treasury sources said Mr Brown was sending out a message to the pay review bodies that come up with pay awards for 40% of Britain's public sector workers. After the big increases in public spending in the first half of this decade, the government is seeking to rein in the public sector wage bill. With inflation expected to remain steady at 2% for two years, the public sector would be seeing virtually no increase in real take-home pay.
Mr Brown also told the CBI that it was important for Britain not to be complacent as it faced the challenge of globalisation. "What we must now do is win the argument that is raging throughout the world - whether it be up against economic patriotism in Europe or populism in Latin America - showing that embracing globalisation, not retreating into protectionism is the best way to growth, jobs and prosperity."
-----------------------
I didn't know there was any inflation?
HD
...the pay freeze will end just in time for the next election. Brown will make sure there are public sector pay rises for his key voters at our expense to try and ensure a second term for him, the scum.
Angry Scooter :angry:
-
The warning shots are coming in thick and fast now! There's still a lot of positive spin on what could potentially be a catastrophe for many people, but at least articles such as these are becoming more regular now ... let's just hope Joe Public pay attention!
When talking about the equities correction, it suggests diversifying into bonds or PROPERTY! Frying pan, fire alert...
-
Yup. We live in a democracy, you can't really blame them for doing exactly what people want them to do.
Do they aspire to be leaders or followers? I thought people were elected to try and what is best, not just what is popular. Idealistic I know but at least as an aspiration...
-
It's hardly a vote winner to say "we are going to make your house prices fall 30% .. but don't worry it's in your best interest". It may actually be in people's best interests but very few actually know/believe that. You can't expect political parties to educate the country on economics in 10 minute speaches.
All that can happen is the housing market crashes and the conservatives explain why it did. That's just the way of things unfortunatly.
How could they possibly propose tax cuts:
- stamp duty revenue is going to fall once people realise an economy does not get rich buying and selling houses to each other
- state workers are going to demand pay rises to pay for the higher costs they are facing
- the NHS is a black hole in which more and more money will be needed as health care gets progressivly more expensive and takes up a higher proportion of GDP
- There are no nice big assets to sell off, telecomms companies are not going to put up with the big 3G auction swindle again for example
- Transport has suffered massive under investment and needs huge injections of cash to get anywere
- Government is going to be needed to fund some energy infastructure or new nuclear power stations etc will not get built
- Continued costs of supporting Iraq/Afghanistan surplus to standard military budget
- Large public debt
Just some of the reasons. Tax cuts would be great, but what is needed first are large spending cuts. Firing about 10% of public sector workers would be a good start.
So they maintain the fiction that low IRs and ever rising prices are a good thing. and if HPs fall and the Tories get in, presumably they will be promising to manage the economy in such a way as to get them to rise again?
-
I can't believe that you could have been as p|issed as you sound as early as 10:45 p.m. So, I have to accept that you were sober and that this must be your attempt at discussion.
Firstly, it doesn't matter one iota what or who I voted for. One thing that does matter, though, is that the British public have had the opportunity to vote for a parliament after all the claims that you make were fully aired. Having considered your arguments (after they were much more competently put, by the way) the voters chose to give only minimal support for those parties who oppose(d) the war. If your assertions had any substance, then it would have been simple to convince the electorate to vote your way. Would it not?
Neither you nor I may be totally happy with the British democratic process but it's the only one we've got. And, we have to remember that each of the three main parties have talked about PR when they had the opportunity to bring it about. None of them did.
p
Apart from that, you're quite happy with Nu Labour!
You must be a NuLab voter-no one else could be that smug.
-
Yes, their views are certainly "couched" in rather strange terms.
Yes, very good...
-
Please, tell me what the English flag represents. It certainly isn't a national flag (England hasn't been a sovereign state since 1707 - you're aware of that, right?)
And yes, I am proud to sport the flag of the European Union (not just on my avatar, but also on my car, mobile phone, windows background, etc). It represents possibly the greater achievement ever seen on this continent; the peaceful unification of the member states.
You are quite correct, I do look forward to the day when there is a United States of Europe, and I find that primitive nationalism isn't helpful.
What is it that you find in nationalism? The nation state is an artificial concept; perhaps you should go the whole way and revert to tribalism.
Your European nationalism and your neo-fascist, imperialist wish to wipe out our own, longstanding national identities seems fairly primitive to me. The EU is not sovereign, despite the wishes of our so-called political elite acting against the wishes of the majority of the national populations. So why have a European flag then? So we can have a flagpole to hang the traitors from one day, perhaps...
-
Well they seem to be representing what a lot of British people believe and if you want to get into name calling about them, then what about the puffs in the labour party where they want every child to be AC/DC.
Are you sure they are all tattooed beer swigging thugs or are they just a bit right of the conservative and all warring ties and suites, fact is the british people have had enough and you will find rich and poor alike are all singing from the same page on this isue.
Why is it crap, your beginning to sound like the type of person you tried to stereotype the average BNP supporter being. Do you question if what I say is true or is it just crap because I made it public and you don’t like the truth.
Would we get along better if I voted for the first party instead because I do like some of the policies that they are proposing ? What do you think BrownBear are they a buit more to your liking.
"warring ties and suites"? Looks like they can't spell in any event (or are they having a race riot on their leather sofa?)
-
I saw an item on Channel 4 news last night about the Tories speaking out against the economy. I saw it in the gym and only came in half way through but got the gist of it. It seemed to me they were starting to gear up for an attack on the economy but they were taking a very softly softly approach. They were suggesting that Gordon Brown was putting the long term stability of the economy at risk for short term gains and not considering the future of young people in this country re pensions etc. I also saw a party political broadcast a few weeks ago where David Cameron was taking the line that they wanted to keep what was good about the Labour party i.e. the economy (keeping the Bank of England independent) but improve on the things they got wrong. I wondered why he was playing it down when he could really go for this if he wanted to. Reading between the lines it seems that they don’t want to panic people. They would probably just turn off and not listen anyway if the Tories started banging on about record levels of debt. It goes against the common perception that the economy is thriving, making them look foolish. It would also invite criticism against them as they are far from perfect themselves. In fact it seemed that Channel 4 were posing the same question, why are they being so ‘touchy feely’ about this subject when they have the ammunition to go ‘guns blazing’ if they wanted to? They proposed a potential reason. They pulled out an old film of Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday, the famous day when interest rates hit 15%, walking out of Number 11 Downing Street to make an announcement to the press. There was a figure stood on his left hand side in the background. It was David Cameron.
They will never say interest rates should rise and house prices fall. They will just waffle about better economic management but try to mimic NuLab.
White Flight The Reason For New Homes In Sw?
in House prices and the economy
Posted
What is a silverback?