FallingAwake

LOL Worth typing up the transcript, for the Youtube challenged to read. However, to be fair to the girl, this perfectly illustrates the silliness of the old class labels. Prescott: Well what class are you then? Girl: I'm just, like, middle class, I don't... Prescott: You're middle class? Girl: Yeah, I ain't got loads of money... I'm not poor. Prescott: I think you're the first one I've seen what *I* would say you're working class, but *you* would say you're middle class. Girl: But I don't work.

That's kind of my point. The key word surely is "working". If you have to work, you're working class. So what distinguishes "working class" from "middle class"? If you work down a mine, you're working class, but if you work as a teacher or lawyer, you're middle class? Ultimately, it all sounds like a form of social snobbery to me, a way for the so-called middle classes to make them feel superior, when most of them are actually *working* their socks off just to pay a mortgage each month.

Just make it mobile, so when they come round with the big hammers, move it

If you have to work, you're not "rich"... or, quite frankly, "middle class"

Problem is that, at least according to what they're saying publicly, they don't see a bubble. Personally, I think they *do* see the risks privately, but they just can't say it out loud. After all, you'd have to be blind to think that £600k for a grotty little flat in London isn't at least somewhat bubbly Great points. Politically, Labour are the most likely to build. However, they need to be genuinely affordable and not just faux affordable for those in receipt of housing benefit. It would be great to see people being able to afford a reasonable sized home on 3.5 times a SINGLE income. Sounds like a wild dream, but wasn't that the situation in 1997? Not that long ago.

I do think fixed rate mortgages make sense, though - after all, most other loans are fixed rate, why should a mortgage be any different? Variable rate mortgages (aka secured loans) border on scams, in my opinion. They already lent the money out, at the time they originated the mortgage, so it's not costing them any more even if the BOE put up their rates. It's basically just another way of squeezing more money out of the debt holders.

Precisely. First Past The Post makes it impossible for them to get into power any time soon, but UKIP can at least use the same system to potentially rob politicians, who don't take the EU issue seriously, of their seats. Who cares what the rest of their policies are? They are, essentially, a one-issue party... and it's probably the biggest issue of the decade, even though the average voter might not realize that... namely, who should govern us? Sure, if you don't think the EU is that important, then keep voting for the Red / Blue / Yellow charade, because it won't matter all that much when the policies they implement are dictated by Brussels anyway

Well, based on the way they act rather than speak, I'd say the 2% inflation rate isn't really a target, it's a minimum. That's why it's almost always over 2%. I think they'd prefer 3% or 4% inflation, but they just can't admit to it.

Yes, the problem with the Tulip Mania bubble was... deteriorating underwriting standards. Sheesh, they can't half talk nonsense, these people

What is it with reporters? Can't they see that a "slump in housing prices" is EXACTLY what people like Zheng Yilong (who has a high level banking job, ffs!) need? Mind you, if you've been brainwashed to believe that house prices are a sacred cow that must be protected at all costs, this is the sort of schizophrenic article you'd produce.

Great comment. I think that "diehard" supporters of the two currently mainstream parties are also dying out (and dying off), and younger voters are growing up and seeing new and different choices in front of them. Admittedly, at present most of those choices suck in various degrees of suckiness, but I think the attitude that "I'm votin' X 'cos my dad used to vote X and his dad before it" is gradually being replaced with something more thoughtful and dynamic. Indeed, it would be good to see something like the PricedOut Party, or that addresses the issues of younger voters. Then they could perhaps influence government thinking on housing, in the same way that UKIP are currently influencing the Tories over Europe. (Example: Latest headline on telegraph.co.uk... "George Osborne lectures the EU on reform"..."Chancellor says Europe must halt decline by backing business and curbing welfare spending if UK is to remain part of it." Hmm... I wonder why he'd be saying that? Could it be a certain "minor party" is influencing him? )

This is surely a moot point if they enshrine the referendum into law, as they seem to be trying to do at the moment. Surely it will mean the Government will be legally obliged to hold a referendum at that time, no matter which party is in power (unless Labour actively create a law nullifying the previous one, which nails their true colours to the mast for all the electorate to see). Again, surely moot... if he enshrines it into law. He can't renege on a LAW. The Conservatives still don't really stand for the same thing, though. UKIP want out. Conservatives don't. I do concede that, if Cameron gets the referendum into law, that's going to improves his chances with the UKIP'ers... but there's still lots of room for fudge, I suspect. - Is this a simple IN / OUT referendum, or one with lots of nuanced options to, umm... "help" the average Brit (which conveniently waters down the "Out" votes) - Can he guarantee he will not be using the resources of the State to support his obvious "IN" stance? - What are the specific reforms he is going to push for, before the recommendation, and on what timetable? At the moment, this "reform" idea is very vague. Hopefully you can see why there's room to be at least a little sceptical.

How come they couldn't win the 2010 election then? (To answer my own question, I suppose that was the "Brown" factor, but that shows that parties and their leaders still have a certain popular appeal.) Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but am I right in saying you're implying that the only way to stop Labour is to vote Tory? You're probably right if that's the primary concern of the electorate, but I honestly think a lot of people are getting fed up with the constant Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue (with occasional shades of Yellow) election charade that has gone on for decades now. 2010 has proven that alternatives *are* available, even if that's not ideal either (I'm talking about the Blue / Yellow coalition), it's the best that can done in our First Past The Post system. What % of the votes did the Lib Dems get in 2010? Wasn't it in the 20's? That shows me you don't have to actually be First past the post, in order to have political influence. As wonderpup pointed out, UKIP are only on 10% and are already influencing Tory policy!

Well, that's perhaps because of how you framed the question. The EU (and getting out of it) is primarily what UKIP is all about, so the question can't be answered except "in relation to the EU". The leadership of the Conservative party want to keep us in the EU, while UKIP want us out. I don't think it's unreasonable either. It's also not unreasonable to be sceptical. After all, politicans are always talking about reforming this or that, and we're supposed to believe they're going to pull off reforming something like the EU? Besides, what reforms precisely, and how? At the moment, the lack of details doesn't help to dispel my scepticism. Remember, David Cameron has reformed the housing market... with Help to Buy

I agree, in that POWER comes from "seats"... but I'd still say that INFLUENCE can come from getting a decent % share of the votes, both overall, and locally. A good % share can make or break MPs, especially in marginal seats. If the Tories lose the next election, and it's partly because UKIP took enough voters off them, then that *is* a message. How can it not be? Yes, it may be a protest vehicle, but I think their relevance will be in that they could make or break the Tories. If not power, then that's certainly influence. That was me again You might be right, but then again... it's been at 0.5% for pretty much 5 or 6 years now... I still think they may have several years left to play this Super-Low Interest Rates game, but I just don't know. I don't think you'd actually stake your life savings on it being 9% in the next parliament, would you?

But you're assuming that UKIP is only taking votes off the so-called "right". What about the many millions of people who don't fall into your categories of "immigrants, public sector troughers, and welfare scroungers", and yet who voted Labour in the past? Do you think they have no opinion on the EU, or that they're perfectly happy with the levels of immigration? Which category did Labour supporting Sue, the one who Gordon Brown famously spoke to, and who was concerned about immigration, fall into? Anyway, even if you're right in your assumptions and that Labour will *never* address that issue ... the Tories certainly must if they want to win an election again. There is a simple way for them to resolve it... guarantee a referendum on the issue. They're going some way towards enshrining that into law, which is a good start - but let's see if they will see it through.

I'd be curious to know what % of joint income households actually REMAIN "joint income" households for the entire 25-30 year period of a mortgage.

(1) Voting for a minor party such as UKIP means the major parties get less of the % of votes, sending a MESSAGE to them. (2) The 2010 election. Lib Dems will probably never get into sole power in our "First Past The Post" system (making them a "minor party" in that regard), yet they now have an influence over Government policy, being in a Coalition. What you seem to be suggesting is that, since minor parties apparently have "no impact", people should perpetually vote Red or Blue, or perhaps not vote at all. That's exactly WHY we're in this mess in the first place! I'm not suggesting UKIP are some kind of magic bullet (I'm actually not massively bothered about Europe to be honest)... BUT by voting for them, it WILL shake things up a bit, and force the two major parties to re-position themselves and actually address their concerns in a serious manner. For example, I *do* think the people of Britain should be given a say in whether we want to be part of an increasingly federalised Europe... don't you? If Scotland gets a say in whether to be part of the UK, shouldn't the British people get the same say when it comes to the EU, especially now it's very different from the EEC voted for in the 1970's? Yet the two major parties have, until recently, been doing everything they can to put this off... with the Lib Dems actively opposed to it. The more votes UKIP get at the next general election, the more the two parties will be FORCED to address this issue.

I agree, but who EXACTLY should the young vote for? Which party has the young's interest at heart? Precisely none of them, at present. Of course, it's a Catch 22... the parties don't do much for the young because they don't vote, and they don't vote because the parties don't do much for the young.

...and then you woke up and realized it was a wet dream?

Good. This stress testing makes sense. On the other hand, if they actually *did* raise interest rates to 7% in the next 5 years, it's gonna get FUN for the unleveraged I think BruceBanner would throw a party!

Since inflation has been consistently OVER target for so long, I presume they'll be adjusting down their current 2% target to compensate...

Don't worry, once even the minimum wage jobs have gone, they'll be conscripted into some kind of National Service to repair potholes or fight World War 4. Everything will be OK.

Sleepthief aren't normally "dance", but I think this amazing track could be classified as dance... Related awesomeness: Conjure One, Balligomingo

And the Government's response so far?..... Help To Buy. grrr.