IP Newcomer

RBS seems to be at the root of the Irish bailout and God knows what else. When we are talking about our banks' exposure to the Irish economy more than a third of that comes from RBS. While the other banks could probably get by with a combination of hair cuts and some government buy back of toxic debt, RBS is £50 billion in that particular hole. What can we do with the millstone that is RBS?

It's clear that RBS needs to go into run-off. While Lloyds-HBOS and Barclays will probably muddle through and the other banks seem to be free and clear, RBS is going to continue to remain a drag. The branch networks of RBS in Scotland and NatWest could probably be floated while the toxic assets could be written off or sold at a discount. there are probably a number of decent assets that could be sold to trade buyers. However the biggest mistake seems to be keeping RBS as an entity that is worth saving. This was understandable when we had a Scottish Prime Minister and Chancellor. Not any more.

If the bank does go under then you will have your money tied up until the government releases it (even when being streamlined that's going to be longer than instant access) and the interest will not be paid at the time. I suspect it's a long shot that the place will fail, but I would wait until the Irish deal is sorted before depositing.

When I first read this I thought it was another barmy hpc idea. Then I read it again. Actually that's brilliant. It would make Labour into the friends of the landlords. It's incredibly simple to convey. The only problem is the new rents (and squeezing money from the old rent). A rent freeze across the board would not work, but refusing to pay more for a property than was paid last year would be quite simple. It could be something for a year before the election.

I suspect that quite a few BTLers are Labour, just because they don't understand shares. That's my experience. However most BTLers are probably Tory. But does that matter? The BTL crowd are relatively small and they aren't concentrated in marginal seats (unlike private renters who are relatively concentrated in marginal seats in and around London). They are also unlikely to be generous with their time or their money. Political campaigns will forget them when they run the numbers through. It's like child benefit for the high earners - if you're a politician it looks bad because your friends are bleating but when you see the polling numbers you change your mind.

It will be more than that. I think it will be eight years's council tax on sale on top of the existing council tax (which will be at a higher band than if it were an existing house). A skilful council with land with development potential could massively cut its council tax bill while increasing spending and do what Wandsworth did with central government grants. Besides even the less skilful councils will be under loads of pressure to somehow make up for the lower government grants, and raising taxes or cutting spending are both hard.

I think the Mail said this, but it doesn't match their text. For example: "Monday, May 10 At sunrise there was all to play for. By sundown the die was cast." The Lib Dem MPs (not leadership) and former leaders were overwhelmingly in favour of the Lib-Lab option, but the combination of the numbers not making sense without the nationalists or Ulster Unionists and the hostility of Ed Balls and people like David Blunkett and Jack Straw meant that the Tories were the only option. That's why it took five days to get what was obvious in the first five hours. The Tories did not need extra parties to form a government and their nutters were easier to sit on. If both parties were at the same standing and showing the same willingness to deal then Clegg could not have secured a Tory deal, no matter how much he wanted one. After a while in power a party gets restless for opposition, and that's what happened to the Labour Party.

Woolas told direct lies about his opponent being arrested and his campaign team was caught trying to "get white people angry". Doesn't actually compare.

Not commenting on the specifics (which are sound by the way) but generally emailing MPs saying that you are fed up with house prices being so high and that you will vote for someone who doesn't try to stop the correction will give the MPs the idea that there is a voting group out there that won't mind house prices going down. Sadly there are an awful lot of people in small houses who want to get into bigger houses who think they are doing better when they have higher house prices. The same goes for people who are wondering why they aren't getting grandchildren when their kid's are stuck in pokey flats, but who would go ballistic if their house price "nest egg" were to go down significantly.

They've got essentially a month and a half for things to calm down in a thin time of year for the market. They could pull it off, but if they've not got a Plan B and Plan C they are being very stupid.

This could make an Irish bailout tricky (which is ironic as they've actually behaved themselves far better than the club med countries).

Labour's gut reaction was to oppose this because Labour people are far more likely to do Buy To Let. They are less likely to understand shares (or more accurately want to understand). Party political activists generally tend to be older and more affluent than average, which will tend to aggravate this. I suspect that the same social trends also affect senior media people as well, who tend to not want to understand business and tend to be relatively affluent, hence the pro-BTL assumptions. The Tory high command have decided that house prices need to come down in relative terms (good) but slowly (bad). Their activists don't really like it, but when the high command is genuinely in control it's going to get its way - particularly on issues where the general public back them. Labour's high command is not in control and so goes by its gut rather than its head. It's been suicidal for Labour. The general public are against them on this and most benefits claimants won't care unless they are chucked out - and that's going to be a tiny amount.

It all depends what the contract says. If it's an ARLA standard contract there will be the option of an annual review. If that's the case then you have the option of appealing (not sure how you do this other than writing to them), giving notice or staying put. If you stay put then your rent due will go up. When my landlord did this I tried to argue that it made it a new contract (the contract was pre tenancy deposit scheme, the review was post deposit scheme and I wanted my deposit registered) but looking at the contract it was fairly clear that the agent for once was right and the rent increase was done within the contract itself.

From the German taxpayer's view, it's got to happen. The Germans are quite right to want to limit their exposure while they're in a strong position to dictate the terms, otherwise it will be like Dubai. If Cameron was less rubbish he'd realise this and blackmail the Germans to get other concessions.

Yes but they can speak English better than Indians and have a better education system. Ireland is not a European economy and not on European cycles, that's why it was such a disaster to join the Euro. It is an English speaking economy, on the same Anglo-American cycle. If it devalues (by exiting the Euro) then it will be fine. They also have a lot of good agricultural land, and that didn't do the New Zealanders any harm. Again the EU is messing that up as well with the CAP interfering with efficient market decisions. Austerity isn't the problem, it's sticking in the Euro (which stopped a UK style devaluation) and taking on the bank loans at face value. They've got to have an almighty crash, but they are not in a bad position after that happens. Unlike Greece or Spain.

If Labour keep on playing this game (which they won't) they will become popular in between elections, win a few high profile byelections and mayors and hundreds of councillors, and then get thumped in the general. Protest parties don't win elections except in a time of crisis. Labour has enough tribal memory of the 1980s to be able to get away from that - or at least Ed Miliband does. They just don't have a decent narrative at the moment so it's oppose, oppose, oppose until something more credible turns up.

Some of those people are Lib Dems more to the point. Anyway Johnson made a meal of Tories cheering the speech and this carried through to the news agenda. You underestimate the man. Also Balls would have killed off Labour for a generation as he denies the deficit.

The New Democracy Party are the main opposition and they've only made vaguely supportive noises. The defaulters are the anti-memorandum bloc. They're doing well at the moment but Greece has been a two party show for quite a long time now.

How many people called recent graduate David T Beaker an MP? This government aren't going to try and institute a massive correction in house prices and will probably do their best to stop a quick correction if they see it. However they do seem to be aware that there is going to have to be a readjustment of house prices in relation to wages, although they want to let this happen over years and avoid the pain of mass repossessions and hopeless negative equity. However they're not crowing about rising house prices as Labour ministers were when asked about the lack of affordable housing. It will be an attempt to let the air out of the tyres rather than slashing it with a knife. Even this is going to meet with opposition from over extended home owners, some of whom will be Tories. It will be too slow, probably unworkable, but they're the best hope you've got.

For affordability without a house price crash you will need rising wages. For competitiveness you probably need real wages to fall a bit. I suspect inflation will let rip with no significant rise in interest rates.

In this case, last year. Still, I can be quite dispassionate about it. Wholly owned so no skin in the game.

Selective repo-ing yes, but why would banks want to own a home that is worth significantly less than the amount they've extended? Banks only want to own to sell. If they sell at below the loan then they will have to recognise the loss. So it will be the 50-something couple who are on the street and the 8 times income couple who are sitting pretty with no mortgage repayments.

A lot of the newer flats near the waterfront are finding that they can only sell with a hefty discount. However there have been milder declines in all the houses (including new builds to some extent) and older flats. There are quite a few people who work in local government up here, so some of the houses could start getting cheaper. I'd also say that a large part of the boom was an extreme commuter boom as people who worked in London moved to Ipswich for the affordable (by London standards) houses and good (by London standards) comprehensives. If Colchester and Chelmsford become cheaper then Ipswich could suffer disproportionately. It's not yet happened, it's just the Buy To Let crowd finally getting panicked about the new build flats.

Saw this on face book "Went to look at a flat today. It was sold in 2007 (new) for £133,000. It is up for sale now at £59,000!!" On the Duke Street roundabout.

Yes but as long as Labour and the unions are in denial they'll be the ones who are blamed.