Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ManInTheStreet

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. I think I'm going to delicately take a step back from HPC once again. This is a very weird website, Is Obama really now regarded as some sort of pariah here? Would we prefer George W Bush? Cheerio chaps.
  2. Allow me to disagree. I think he is perfect for 5 Live, just as Eddie Mair is perfect for R4. It doesn't matter whether I personally like his style, or whether you personally dislike his style. It's the masses and the ratings that matter, and there's good reason for the spectacular resurrection of his media career. He's actually pretty good at what he does, and is very popular, hence his promotion.
  3. Politicians don't give a presenter a "hard time" or an easy time. Like a lot of people on this site. you totally misunderstand the role of the interviewer. His job is to be confrontational, regardless of politician and party. Richard Bacon, and presenters/journalists in general are playing a role to try to tease out information. Cameron did a good job, as he usually does, as all opposition politicians usually do. He was allowed to do a good job by the presenter, who offered just the right level of resistance to force Cameron to give a good account of himself.
  4. I'm delighted the ruling went in favour of the OFT. What I would say is that bank charges tend to be too high. It's not right to be charged £25-£35 for temporarily going overdrawn i.e. if a regular standing order goes out a day early because of a public holiday, which has happened to me in the past. I reckon a charge of about £10 would be fair. That said, I really have no patience whatever for people who go overdrawn every month as a matter of habit because they can't stay out of the pub, and can't be arsed to check their balances and take steps to avoid going overdrawn. People just need to get a grip on the way they administer their money. In France, it is illegal to write a cheque when you don't have sufficient funds. Yes, a criminal offence as it's regarded as tantamount to theft. Over here, we regard it as some god-given birthright to spend money we don't have. It's a state of mind that is at the root of the housing bubble. It's simple -- Learn to manage your money properly and ethically, and guess what -- YOU WILL NEVER PAY A PENNY IN CHARGES EVER AGAIN! How's that for radical thinking?
  5. I've been very happy with H-L though I've not done exhaustive comparisons with other providers. I like the fact that they are large (and are themselves a publicly listed company). It gives me a certain peace of mind in these turbulent times. As for charges, I don't have a day trader mentality so tend not to be too worried about charges for share transactions. If you intend doing a lot of buying and selling, there are cheaper brokers to use. I do scan my annual accounts from time to time and have never seen any big charges for general account management.
  6. Anyone invested in Bordeaux 2005/06 (or who wants to be) should read this -- http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gbaO6lXZmxtXkqpyreBFk3IZ-hpA
  7. So where's the evidence of bias? They led with the Lib Dems and SNP and Tory campaigns when launched last week, and they lead with Labour today when they launch theirs. They have given them all identical coverage. Every single story has the same headline e.g. "SNP launch by-election bid", "Tories launch by-election bid" and so on. You can see them aching to give everyone exactly the same coverage. Do you seriously think other news media are balancing the coverage in the same way? The only bias on show here is yours.
  8. If you want to find bias, you will find it, by filtering in what supports your view, and filtering out what doesn't. First of all, I've no idea what people mean by "the BBC". At any one time, there are hundreds of programmes on dozens of networks, each with their own editorial teams and presenters. The idea that all of these people follow the same party line is laughable. I work from home, and listen to the BBC all day -- R4 and 5 Live mainly. It seems no discussion ever takes place without them trying to balance the viewpoints. People who grumble about the BBC are those who don't want to see balance at all, but an over-representation of their views. Looking back at the last couple of years in particular, as the financial crisis has unfolded, I can't believe that anyone is seriously claiming that the BBC have not given full publicity to anti-government, anti-Labour, anti-banker viewpoints. It's one long moanfest. Do we listen to the same things? If we do, we certainly don't hear the same things.
  9. In HPC terms, I'd probably be regarded as a bull, insofar as I think things will recover without Armageddon. That said, I think things will get worse before they get better. The economy always will be cyclical (regardless of the "end to boom and bust" nonsense), and I don't believe that after such a large peak, we can have hit the bottom yet. It seems clear to me that unemployment has to keep getting worse, with the resulting depressing effect on the economy at large, and in turn, house prices. There is plenty of chaos to come. Postal workers look like striking, and public sector strikes under the likely Tory administration look very likely. We could be looking at a new era of industrial unrest, and the battering that will give the economy, and our standing in the world. Like someone earlier, I think there are 5 years left at least before genuine recovery starts. In the meantime I expect ups and downs. Nimble stock market investors for instance, could do well. I wouldn't put off people buying property if they can afford it, but I don't think we are on the cusp of another property boom.
  10. Logic isn't your strong point, is it? As you rightly say, the decision makers through the bubble were bankers and politicians. The people who voted to sell off council houses were (Tory) politicians too. I'd suggest that what these people have in common is not that they were born in certain decades (there are many politicians and city boys who are not boomers). What they have in common is they are all..... bankers and politicians. Direct your bile at them, not at millions of people who have played no part in passing these laws or regulating the behaviour of bankers. You may as well say that white people are to blame. Or men are to blame. Or Europeans and Americans are to blame. And don't you dare try to blame Thatcherite council house policy on me. I was one of the hundreds of thousands of people marching against this appalling policy. The financial mess has as much to do with estate agents and TV property porn shows as anything else, and these people belong to all generations -- including your own.
  11. No social group has made that decision. People have bought and sold property for a long time now, and people born in the 40s and 50s (which I think is how boomers are defined?) bought and sold houses like anyone else. Those many millions of people have not made any such decision to economically disenfranchise their own children. Christ, my relatives in their 20s are doing far better than I was managing at their age. The recent house price boom began in the mid to late 90s. The ludicrous stampede for property at any price that we've seen from 2001-2007 is not some boomer conspiracy. Most of that group, I strongly suspect, were already busy paying their mortgages by this time. It seems to be a mixture of lax financial regulation and some sort of mass hysteria stoked up by TV 'property porn' shows that is largely responsible. I would willingly bet that most property transactions during this period were negotiated and agreed by post-boomer era people. And anyway, even if they weren't, the very idea that there is some sort of generational conspiracy is hysterical paranoia. At what point do you think the boomers got together to pass this resolution you complain of? Pah!
  12. I agree that the figures need to be scrutinised and proven to work.. Over time, I've no doubt the premium will have to rise, but unless you're under the impression that the Tories are likely to offer a state bailout ( ) there will be no subsidy from the taxpayer. That's how I read it. It's a voluntary insurance scheme financed by premiums. As for 'the boomer generation' and champers and ill-gotten gains, you need to stop enviously eyeing up other people's lives and get on with improving your own. There are plenty of things in reach of younger people, like equality of opportunity, university education, good health, opportunity to travel the world, intellectual liberation, easy access to the stock market, that older people wish they had had available to them. Every generation has opportunities; you just have to look for them.
  13. Oh for heaven's sake, why do people have to parade their playground prejudices all the time on here? As I read it, this isn't a scheme for 'boomers' but for anyone reaching retirement age, and that includes all of you, regardless of your current age. This is an insurance scheme, i.e. a group of people pay in for peace of mind, and a small minority who need it, will be paid from the pooled investment. Why is that so hard to understand? If the costs look like exceeding the investment, then the premium will have to rise, just like any insurance plan. But here's the good news -- it's entirely voluntary. No one is forcing you to enter the scheme. You can continue to take the risk of having to finance your own care if you wish. Your choice.
  • 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.