Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

North London Rent Girl

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by North London Rent Girl

  1. Bloody hell, I completely agree - another 'I can't believe I'm saying it' moment, I'd rather Trump than Biden any day of the week, just on behalf of all of the people on the wrong end of the bombs and drones. I take it you've heard about the establishment republicans and democrats getting together last week to stop Trump reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan? I'm done with the left vs right pantomime, it's the global establishment versus the people of earth.
  2. Oh dear, another long overdue reply - you're asking me why I think Starmer would mean we ended up with more war. It's a Starmer/Biden combo I'm afraid of. Biden is really ill at this point and would be a puppet of the US 'deep state', or whatever you want to call it, and Starmer appears to be in the pocket of the same people and happy to do their bidding, however sinister. I say that because of his behaviour over Assange/Wikileaks, in which it would appear he played a crucial role. It is theoretically possible that when DPP he was unaware of his department's key part in obliterating Assange's reputation so that he could be destroyed, but it isn't at all likely, especially in light of the fact that Starmer went to Washington to meet with Eric Holder in 2011, a point at which the US was orchestrating a major international effort to take Assange down. If you think that's hyperbolic - as we all know from the msm, there's really no story there, nothing going on, haha - you can hear details of this from Iceland's former Interior Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P89SAtsjpxk Here's a really good article about Starmer: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/05/five-questions-for-new-labour-leader-sir-keir-starmer-about-his-uk-and-us-national-security-establishment-links/ I think that with Starmer in No. 10 and Biden in the Whitehouse, we might well see war with Iran - the scary lunatics in the US have been longing for that for ages and with their man in place here they'd be sure of UK support. I don't think they're insane enough to go for a hot war with Russia but, you know, they're pretty bloody insane and with the world in the state it's in I'm not sure we can entirely rule that out. Again, 2020's motto, can't believe I'm saying that.
  3. Argh, this post is ages old now but just wanted to agree with you extremely!
  4. Good news, thank you - have abandoned the grauniad but nice to get the odd thing filtered through. He doesn't expressly mention the impact on commercial property prices, which should be catastrophic. Two people I know - and I don't know many with normal office-jobs - have told me that their firms are giving up their premises and are going to be 'hot-officing'. An alexander technique practitioner I know has given up the room she rented for years in the City - in a whole building of therapy rooms rented to hands-on complementary therapy practitioners, most of whom will have lost the vast majority of their clients. What would be a silver lining to the economic catastrophe would be that the vast voids in commercial property led to purchase prices plummeting and people being able to buy commercial premises and convert them to residential, with a massive knock-on effect on residential property prices. But at this point I'm not expecting that, I'm fascinated to see how on earth the government is going to prevent the market from crashing this time. As for "... there is still a reserve army of eager buyers wanting to get their foot on the ladder. More will emerge after each successive price decline." This is a very static view - who's going to lend to them? Even if they do still have a job? Especially as so many people under 35 are already very heavily indebted. This adds to my sense that people who have been able to keep working and people who have been cushioned by money from the government haven't realised the sort of economic change we're in for. To combine these things, hmm, I wonder whether we might end up with the government cutting out all the theatre and middle-men and just lending people cheap money to buy houses directly. UKGOVMORT.
  5. Agreed, he might have won if he'd stuck to that but he was between a rock and a hard place - broadly speaking, lose the north or lose the southern cities. He picked the southern cities, it looks like under huge pressure not least from the parliamentary party. I think by doing so he relegated the labour party to opposition for a couple of rounds to come and the fact that Starmer is highly palatable to the south is not going to make up for that. Even if his blairish charms win over some southern tories, the north won't fall for him, they withstood the anti-brexit propaganda onslaught and are the wiser for it.
  6. I do love this board, I know we all have our moments (see the bitcoin thread recently) but it's still a relatively very civil corner of the net, what a treasure.
  7. Not crazy at all, you're in good company, or at least a lot of company! We know that the intelligence services were working to get rid of the labour government in the 70s. It does look like if the ostensible government takes a sideways step (Brexit?) the permanent state or whatever you want to call it goes into action.
  8. OK, well, we disagree. Covid appears to have the same death rate as a nasty flu bug and has been made far too much of. The devastation has been caused by the response, which is something that Johnson was browbeaten into by dodgy characters like Neil Ferguson. I am one of those people who is very suspicious of the whole business. We need to end the lockdown and crack on with our lives. As for brexit, I did not start out, pre-referendum, as a brexiteer but I am now one for constitutional reasons. It has gone on for far too long and we need to get out. Besides which, the EU is in real trouble, it looks like the euro might well be for the high-jump and in the long-term it is likely to benefit us to be out. I don't get the fear because I've been working with clients who are outside the EU all my working life. Outside the EU is most of the world, lest we forget. And god knows what would happen if they had referenda in France, Italy, Greece and Spain at the moment, we'd probably see a lot of '-exit' results.
  9. Maybe, maybe not but the last election was pretty much single-issue, despite the msm spin, and we need to respect the results of it. They were voted in to get us out of the EU and that needs to happen as a priority or we'll end up with blood on the streets. Starmer is dead set against that. I'm not sure anybody would have been 'up to' dealing with whatever covid is. I definitely don't want Starmer's labour party in charge, we'll be waging more wars before you can say Jack Robinson.
  10. I agree with the first part but I think Starmer might just be Blair reincarnate, with a few minor tweaks - we're there already. He'll be popular in the south but doubt he'll have much appeal at all in the north, given his anti-brexitism. I can't stand him because he was in charge of the CPS when they bullied Sweden into continuing to lie about Julian Assange. If push came to shove I would vote for Johnson over Starmer. Can't believe I'm saying that but then 'I can't believe I'm saying that' is something I seem to say an awful lot these days.
  11. "The market freeze has left many agents in despair." Hurray! "Many responded to the Rics monthly survey with unusually blunt one-word responses, such as “catastrophic”." Hurrah, music to our ears! "In Leicester, Andrew York, of Moore & York, said: “The market is entering a phase of complete disruption and possible meltdown”." Zippedy-doo-dah, let's have a virtual street-party! "Earlier this week, in one of the first major assessments of the market by a major forecaster, Knight Frank said it expected transactions to tumble by more than a third this year and prices to slip by 3%." Hurr... What? Say what now? Sorry, what did you just say? 3%?! Three blinking per cent?! But I thought it was, it was, they said catastrophic and possible meltdown - oooohhhhhhhhh, of course, you're all just estate agents just talking, that's where the Guardian is getting its info, estate agents and RICS, what fantastic sources of information. Well done Grauniad, you useless piece of tat. Cometh the day, and it won't be long, I will dance on your grave (hell hath no fury as a woman misled for decades). Of which, another great quote from this piece: "Rics is not an organisation that would call for a stamp duty holiday on a whim." Says... RICS!!! And hahapuke, of course it would, RICS would say ANYTHING! Edit - thought I should put in a bit of support for the RICS bit (as I'm not the Guardian)... 19 SEP 2018 Government must stamp out outdated housing taxes to help young people buy "RICS has long called on Government to incentivise downsizing, to no avail. One method suggested is to incentivise those with larger homes to move into smaller properties, by making them exempt from stamp duty. [...] Secondly, removing Stamp Duty altogether and adjusting Council Tax rates to account for lost revenue is also seen as a viable option, by just under 20% of respondents. [...] It is not surprising that our professionals feel that residential property taxation is out of kilter. If we consider tax in terms of how they disincentivise certain behaviours, SDLT makes purchasing, moving and making more effective use of stock costly at a time when we need all these things." 5 APR 2019 UK stamp duty: should it be abolished? - guess what their 'expert' suggests? 30 AUG 2019 Can we expect more changes to the Stamp Duty Land Tax Regime? "Historically, RICS has called on the government to undertake a full-scale review of the SDLT regime, as opposed to the current piecemeal approach, and this view has not changed. [...] The review should also explore the many potential, alternative taxation measures, such as a stamp duty exemption for downsizers; or replacing stamp duty land tax with a reformed council tax." 19 DEC 2019 RICS Housing Forecast 2020: What should Government do next? - of course, 'fix' the stamp duty rules... 12 MAR 2020 Demand grows for UK housing, although uncertainty lies ahead "The ball is in the Chancellor’s court and his first budget is a great opportunity to deliver the long-term confidence the property industry and investors need – he can achieve this by reviewing stamp duty to encourage the supply of more homes, ensuring its fit for the twenty first century".
  12. Thanks for the link Jimmyjammy001. The title of the article is alreay propagandizing us - UK MAY NEED gov to step in. Thassright, whatever crazy sh it they come up with will be unavoidable, absolutely necessary, the only sensible way forward and therefore palatable to any reasonable adult. "[A]nticipated near-term sales dropped to their weakest level in more than two decades" - should be trouble, we should be getting somewhere. But of course they won't stop interfering and just let the housing market sort itself out naturally, what they will do is eff it up even more in some inventive way. I'd like to think that this is too big for them to deal with but they'll think of something. If only they would put their creative talents to good use. Praps we should start a thread taking bets on what the gov will do this time to keep the market from collapsing.
  13. Thanks for the heads-up, I will, stay well yourself. As for the help to small businesses, I know a car mechanic who has just been given 10 grand, which - as a taxpayer who won't be getting anything - I don't begrudge him at all. If there's one thing I hope this has taught us it's who does the important jobs.
  14. Good point well made - they're like gold dust and anyone who has one or is subletting one is the envy of their friends. What's wrong with rent controls? How are they bad for us? I'm in the incredibly fortunate position of having a lovely landlady who has only put the rent up twice in 13 years, one further moderate increase to come later this year. That's been amazing for me, I'm so thankful and feel so lucky but most landlords don't behave like that. Why wouldn't it be good for rent controls to stop landlords hiking rents too high/too often? I can't see a down-side.
  15. Sadly, I agree. 50% would be but a start for many people. I might finally get to use my what-should-be-a-very-good-deposit savings, except I work for myself and am over the threshold so I might need to spend my savings if this thing really runs on. Am glad I developed a philosophical attitude towards my ineligibility to get anything back ever when I bust my wrist and couldn't work for a few months. Worker donkeys of the world unite.
  16. Hmm, 'accidentally'? Isn't the Fed just giving its mates - actually its owners and masters - unimaginably vast amounts of wonga? They might quite like a temporary crash. Buy up as much as they can for peanuts then encourage the government to get in there and push prices back up. Job's a goodun, massive land grab. These people who amass unspendable wealth and all the power aren't just bumbling about going whoops, whoops.
  17. As the lending reserve requirement was abolished, oh, sorry, I mean 'reduced to zero' in the US last week, thought I'd take a look at what we're doing here. After all these years, I still find the terminology confusing, they could not make it more offputting and 'keep walking, nothing to see here', but pretty sure have got this right. From the Bank of England on 11 March https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2020/march/boe-measures-to-respond-to-the-economic-shock-from-covid-19 "the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) has reduced the UK countercyclical capital buffer rate to 0% of banks’ exposures to UK borrowers with immediate effect. The rate had been 1% and had been due to reach 2% by December 2020. The FPC expects to maintain the 0% rate for at least 12 months, so that any subsequent increase would not take effect until March 2022 at the earliest." How do they reconcile that with this, from https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financial-stability "The FPC increases the CCyB when it judges that risks are building up. This means that banks are required to have an additional cushion of capital with which to absorb potential losses, enhancing their resilience and contributing to a stable financial system." Thoughts?
  18. Agreed, I used to be allergic to comparisons between Russia and here but I've started making them myself. I cannot believe that I'm going to RT for some of my news now, have given up on the BBC with their blackouts on massively important news topics like Paris and Julian Assange. My TV licence expired last week, I have always paid it pretty much on the first notice it's due. I'm toying with the idea of telling them to stuff it although am nervous. But really, if you listened to the BBC, you wouldn't know there was anything happening in Paris and you wouldn't know that an extraordinarily important set of legal proceedings took place in London last week. And god know what I missed in the first 50 years of my life when I had Radio 4 on in the background all the time and was no doubt completely propagandized.
  19. Lovely rise in BTL repossessions, OO ones still make me feel bad although I know you have to go some to get your home repossessed. BUT, in general, strikes me as a bit of post-peak ramping, trying to get buyers into the market as if 'below market' prices weren't still hilariously high and in need of massive correction.
  20. Wow, and look at those policement, riot helmets? You're policing a protest by graduate students! This seems to be another case of people being punished - losing their jobs - for saying that something is wrong and campaigning for change. How oppressive.
  21. That is hideous. I just took a look at the intro to the "proposal for central banks to make cash as costly as bank deposits with negative interest rates" that links to, it's called NEGATIVE NOMINAL INTEREST RATES: THREE WAYS TO OVERCOME THE ZERO LOWER BOUND - the zero lower bound being the floor that cash imposes. It's by Willem H. Buiter (his email is on the doc, just saying). "A number of economists have suggested that, using calculations based on variations of the Taylor rule (a rule that makes the official policy rate an increasing function of the output gap and of the excess of actual or expected inflation over target inflation) and ignoring the zero lower bound, the official policy rate in the US early in 2009 should have been as low as minus 5 percent or even minus 7.5 percent. Whatever the merits of the Taylor rule and the specific calculations, there is a strong case that the zero lower bound has indeed, during the current downturn, been a binding constraint on central bank interest rate setting." Given that phasing out cash is tricky, what else could they do? Put an expiry date on cash, tax it or do this with it, which I'm having trouble decipering at this early hour: "The third method decouples the numéraire function of currency from its means of payment/medium of exchange function and introduces a variable exchange rate between a unit of the one-period safe non-monetary security denominated in terms of the numéraire and the currency/means of payment. That exchange rate can either be set by the government or be market-determined. This permits the nominal interest rate in terms of the numéraire to be negative, even though the nominal interest rate in terms of the currency is subject to the zero lower bound." I'm struck that what they're talking about is an anti-speculation approach that is generally only taken in wartime. As if saving money were these days an equivalent evil to speculation. It's so upside down, sigh, has been for a couple of decades, no point saying it. Of these horrible three options, can we have the last one? Doesn't that mean at least we can keep cash? But praps actually they can stuff all of the above, sod them.
  22. Good post - good lord, you posted it when, 3 am? Blimey. Just heard this 'story' on the radio and it's in the Times this morning, too, albeit as part of a more breezy (bluff?) piece about how the sector's still good and where's best to buy: "Will new eviction rules hit the market? More than 40 per cent of landlords warn that they will stop letting homes if they can no longer take back their properties through the simple “no-fault” eviction route, according to a survey of almost 6,400 buy-to-let investors and letting agents by the Residential Landlords Association (RLA), an industry body. The government plans to revoke this right from landlords. That “risks driving more than 40 per cent of landlords out of the sector”, the RLA study says. About 84 per cent of landlords said the changes would make them “more selective” in who they rent to. “This is likely to impact on low-income, vulnerable tenants most of all,” the report adds." What terrible news, given that houses fall down as soon as they stop being let. Also this bit from the beeb piece you link to struck me as a big ole bluff: "The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) said its survey of 6,400 landlords suggested that 84% of its members would be more selective, picking tenants on higher incomes and leaving those earning less to fight over fewer properties." Is this where we are? Aren't rents falling? Are landlords in a position whereby they pick and choose and leave us serfs to fight each other? How grim that this is how the RLA and its members would love things to be!
  23. Errol, that seriously freaked me out, went and downloaded it, haven't got far but how is this for downright sinister? "Relying on the price system to create a negative paper currency interest rate reduces the administrative burdens and drastic changes in the way people or institutions transact that would accompany quantity restrictions on cash. Avoiding drastic changes in the way people transact avoids one possible source of political opposition."
  • 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.