Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mbga9pgf

My Letter To The Tories And My Local Mp...

Recommended Posts

I know how pessemistic most of us are on here to this achieveing absolutely anything, but believe me, I felt 10 times better for it once I had posted that B*stard.

George Osborne Esq. M.P.

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

OPPOSITION PARTY INACTION WITH RESPECT TO MORTGAGE MARKET CONTROLS

1. Mr. Osborne, I write to you in order to voice my unease as to the lack of action displayed by the Conservative Party with regards to the stance the government and the Financial Services Authority are taking with respect to mortgage market controls and stricter consumer debt regulation. While I am fully aware of the Conservative Party’s stance on the FSA and the FSA’s long term future, I feel action at this time is not only necessary, but will benefit the Conservative Party significantly when the true picture of our State and individual finances are revealed post-general election.

2. As a xx year-old middle class British professional, I have held to the Conservative view as long as I can remember. Yet, I cannot help but feel increasingly frustrated at the hands-off approach my Conservative Party, as opposition, have taken to many issues not least of which,the destructive exponential growth in consumer secured and unsecured lending. This lending has affected the lives of not only of those encountering hardship as a result of usury, but also those individuals who strongly oppose the expansion of fiscal debt, consumer lending and the unnatural growth in asset values which has directly resulted.

3. As a believer in what I see as the true Conservative free market economy, I was distraught to see a lack of warning from the Conservative Party during the supposed boom years, no matter how unpopular a warning would have been. As recent events have shown, unpopular decisions made early can avert catastrophe further down the line. The simple statistic that national growth as defined by GDP would have been negative from around 2002 without the additional help fiscal and personal debt was plain to see; yet, the nation received no warning, despite whether one was sought or not. My party it seems, chose to abandon the financially conservative by providing scant opposition to a tripartite system whose mantra appears to have been “no-one is responsibleâ€, lack of realistic market controls (or at the bare minimum effective auditing) and an independent Bank of England whilst allowing numerous monetary doves to be elected to the MPC of a central bank that has consistently held the M4 average above 10% since 2002.

4. The facts are plain to see; real values for secured and unsecured lending sit at astronomic all-time highs, government expenditure exceeds that of the other G8 nations whilst the future for unemployment, business investment and public services looks beyond bleak. Why are these facts not being rammed repeatedly down Gordon Brown’s throat, most preferably publicly? Why are you allowing the current government to shift much of today’s fiscal problem on the Conservatives return to power? If you think that the populace will wholly support you once you are in power and blame it all on the previous government, I suggest you look at Barrack Obama’s approval ratings of late. You need to face reality; the population will not blame those responsible for austerity but blame the government responsible for enforcing austerity. You face possibly the biggest crisis faced by any incoming government in the history of our country and you need to start preparing the nation now, by laying the blame for the irresponsible decisions made during the last decade squarely on the shoulders of those engineers of our troubles. Do it shamelessly, because the message needs to be indelibly imprinted in the minds of all by the time you raise taxes.

5. To the crux then, why do we allow the FSA and treasury to conclude that simple market controls for personal lending are unnecessary and a threat to competitiveness, yet are used globally by competing other nations such as Canada, a nation with a much smaller individual debt burden? A simple 4.5 times salary multiple against total personal lending of which up to 0.5 times can be allowed for consumer credit would prevent asset bubbles and excessive debt as it would tie assets directly to individual salaries. Can you, as future Chancellor, promise me that interest rates will remain low for the next 25 years? If not, then mortgages surely need to be tied to income as opposed to an individual’s shorter term ability to pay. By doing this, you ensure some form of economic stability for not only your time in power, but also for generations to come.

6. Instead, the incumbent government continue to trust a banking system which holds the country to over a trillion pounds in government supported debt insurance schemes, share and asset purchases and have concluded that these banks have the moral fortitude or desire to prevent the next asset bubble. I seriously doubt they do. Whilst financial services in terms of personal lending should be competitive of offered rates and associated services such as payment protection and insurance, why should banks be supported in pumping asset values to the stratosphere then be bailed by the state sector when deflated asset bubbles cause havoc with our economy? Competitiveness in personal debt provision should not be defined by how much an individual can borrow but the quality of the service when compared to the cost.

7. Why are the incumbent government supporting schemes which further support bad debt, schemes which not only pay off the interest portion of a mortgage for those encountering unemployment, but go on to assist in capital repayment of the mortgage as well?1 Why support assisted buyer schemes when what we need as a nation is lower asset prices? Whilst this may be politically unpalatable, we need as a nation to move away from viewing our homes as a pension or investment, or at least, expect full free market conditions without government intervention if this is how the country wishes to view its housing. Why is there no opposition to government schemes which support deferring interest payments to a later date, namely to the next governments tenure and are set to cause a bigger repossession wave than could be expected without said schemes once these schemes lapse?2 If I were in a position of power, I would currently be warning those looking to obtain mortgages in excess of 3.5 times salary, that the effects of historically loose monetary policy and quantitative easing are not fully understood and before embarking on too much debt, consideration of significantly increased interest rates may be necessary once the economic rebalance is complete. In other words, if the banks and the FSA refuse to do it, together with the treasury, then surely the responsibility lies with the opposition party.

8. As an individual who, despite the lure of financial recklessness, saw through the hype and chose to save every spare penny of his family’s cash towards a family home for 5 years, invested in reputable banks and UK companies and rented as opposed to take part in what many saw as economic folly, then watch house prices and my future family home, reach astronomic and unobtainable levels over 5 years unhindered, for me is beyond the pale. To then be smacked in the face by a government that not only abandoned responsible individuals with laissez faire free market controls during the boom, then to proceeded with wide scale state sector intervention using my taxes to pump a housing market that is so divisive that 40% of my fellow engineering course graduates have chosen to flee the shores of the UK seriously smarts. On top of this, I now face, according to the FT and Mervyn King, as a result of these deleveraging asset bubbles, negative rates of interest in combination with future “locked in†inflated asset pricing as a result of QE (I didn’t think the BOE targeted asset prices by the way, or is this one of those unpleasant but necessary unintended consequences?), all of which will have to be paid for at a later date in the face of increased cost gradients, from lower exchange rate led inflation and taxation that I am fully aware you will need to levy.

9. This policy seems to have overlooked the fact that increased inflation will not assist the UK economy but hinder it, as global demand is set to remain at highly subdued levels for a prolonged period. As for wage inflation, which due to ongoing demand destruction, is set to again remain subdued for a lengthy period and simply cannot be stimulated by current policies. Please, do something to preserve at least a little of what this forsaken government will leave us with. And please do not forget moral hazard; not all savers are over 50 and many of the younger generation resent irresponsible consumer bankrupts who are forgiven of their debt induced misdemeanours after 12 months, now at taxpayer cost. Many highly productive and skilled individuals will continue for a time to believe in the right thing to do; stick with the UK and continue to save and invest, whilst adding to productivity, but, if this country chooses to ignore them, we will simply leave, as many already have, to lands of better opportunity for the future of our families. Once we go, we are not coming back.

10. One last thought. A calculation based upon interest rates at a conservative low of 4%, current gross public bank deposits (quite high at the moment as you would expect) will be exhausted in interest payments alone once we add around another £700 billion to the current individual debt statistics, currently standing at around £1.221 Trillion. The BOE can attempt monetary re-inflation once again feeding into excessive personal debt; unless we find a significant additional source of personal income or start to pay down our individual debt in real terms, we will lose all ability to repay our personal debt burden once this “interest only†debt Rubicon is passed. Once we pass it, we have only one option; state bankruptcy. This does not account for increased taxation, tax haul or decreased pay, or the effects of decreased disposable income.

Regards,

XXXX

1. http://www.onlyfinance.com/Mortgages/Mortg...-borrowers.aspx

“The amount that you receive under the ISMI scheme is calculated assuming a mortgage interest of 6.08% regardless of the actual amount of each mortgage and the money is paid directly to the lender by the state. This extension is in addition to another recent government initiative, the "homeowner mortgage support scheme", which will guarantee the mortgage interest payments of those who have lost their jobs for two yearsâ€.

2.http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/Keepingyourhomeevictionsandhomelessness/Mortgagesandrepossessions/DG_177639

If you are accepted for HMS, your lender will delay some of the monthly interest due on your mortgage. This will reduce your payments for up to two years. The money isn’t written off – you’ll have to pay it back eventually. This is also known as 'deferring' your repayments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
I know how pessemistic most of us are on here to this achieveing absolutely anything, but believe me, I felt 10 times better for it once I had posted that B*stard.

Given that you freely admit the Conservative Party's complicit behaviour in the current situation the wonder is why you continue to support them.

The current situation is the logical end of the deregulation arc started by Thatcher and Reagan. Had Labour stuck to it's original opposition the world would have been a very different place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[4] You face possibly the biggest crisis faced by any incoming government in the history of our country and you need to start preparing the nation now, by laying the blame for the irresponsible decisions made during the last decade squarely on the shoulders of those engineers of our troubles. Do it shamelessly, because the message needs to be indelibly imprinted in the minds of all by the time you raise taxes.

[9] The BOE can attempt monetary re-inflation once again feeding into excessive personal debt; unless we find a significant additional source of personal income or start to pay down our individual debt in real terms, we will lose all ability to repay our personal debt burden once this “interest only†debt Rubicon is passed. Once we pass it, we have only one option; state bankruptcy.

Browns 'scorched earth policy' prior to the GE is all about leaving the country in a sh1te state for the incoming governmnet.

The Tories should be educating the masses. Starting with the likelihood of an IMF bailout.

It seems they know they are going to get in, and therefore have decided to keep quiet.

Great letter btw. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had Labour stuck to it's original opposition the world would have been a very different place.

I think he´s too soft on the Conservatives and you´re too kind to Labour.

I turned my back on the political parties years ago but having known some of the characters personally I can tell you that a lot of the problems stem from the ongoing ideological wars that go on between the parties and the individuals who embed themselves undemocratically in institutions in order to undermine any progress that will benefit the people of Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he´s too soft on the Conservatives and you´re too kind to Labour.

I turned my back on the political parties years ago but having known some of the characters personally I can tell you that a lot of the problems stem from the ongoing ideological wars that go on between the parties and the individuals who embed themselves undemocratically in institutions in order to undermine any progress that will benefit the people of Britain.

....apathy will bring total wipe-out for the country ....fight the low lifes on both sides..... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know how pessemistic most of us are on here to this achieveing absolutely anything, but believe me, I felt 10 times better for it once I had posted that B*stard.

good

but youll get a standard response written by one of his helpers with links to speaches or proposals put forward by DC to sort out the banks - (not)

trust me i have a few

Osbourne cant be arsed to reply though - you have more chance addressing it to Cameron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a few tories and they have both got massive BTL portfolios. Says it all really, they are just as bad, well almost ans tosser brown and cronies.

Edited by Spoony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Difficult To Remember Username,

Your letter.

I don't think anyone will read that, its far too long and far too dense.

Three related points max (if you have multiple topics, write multiple letters), no more than four lines each, for a maximum of 12 lines. The whole things needs to fit on one side of A4 with plenty of whitespace. People that they ask for advice don't write as much as you have.

1. Furthermore, you won't get anywhere attempting to tell a politician his business.

2. In fact what you do is to provide them with a good reason for ignoring you even if they did read it. When you write to a politician you have to be clear about who is who in the relationship. You are a citizen and voter, you have a right to express your concerns. If you want to really ramp, express your distress. But you are not a Conservative party strategist, you do not have access to polling data, you are not entrusted with crafting their message or managing their PR.

3. I'm afraid attempts to pretend you have a valid opinion on any of that immediately moves your correspondence into the 'nutter' file and doesn't represent anything they have to answer or care about. A complaint or concern from a citizen and a voter commands (however grudgingly) consideration albeit by a spotty teenager working for a luncheon voucher a day; backseat political driving does not.

Hope that helps.

Yours faithfully, me.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Difficult To Remember Username,

Your letter.

I don't think anyone will read that, its far too long and far too dense.

Three related points max (if you have multiple topics, write multiple letters), no more than four lines each, for a maximum of 12 lines. The whole things needs to fit on one side of A4 with plenty of whitespace. People that they ask for advice don't write as much as you have.

1. Furthermore, you won't get anywhere attempting to tell a politician his business.

2. In fact what you do is to provide them with a good reason for ignoring you even if they did read it. When you write to a politician you have to be clear about who is who in the relationship. You are a citizen and voter, you have a right to express your concerns. If you want to really ramp, express your distress. But you are not a Conservative party strategist, you do not have access to polling data, you are not entrusted with crafting their message or managing their PR.

3. I'm afraid attempts to pretend you have a valid opinion on any of that immediately moves your correspondence into the 'nutter' file and doesn't represent anything they have to answer or care about. A complaint or concern from a citizen and a voter commands (however grudgingly) consideration albeit by a spotty teenager working for a luncheon voucher a day; backseat political driving does not.

Hope that helps.

Yours faithfully, me.

Well,

At least george wont be surprised when the other 60% of my university course, the majority of top rate taxpayers piss off to other shores, to leave the UK with a bunch of dying wrinklies and dole-ite scum to pay off the estimated 180% of GDP public sector debt.

He knows it, I know it.

This country is far too apathetic. The letter wasnt about swaying opinion. It was about proving there are people still out here that give a sh*t about our country, but wont stick round if things arent put right pretty soon. And I reckon there are a fair few opinion polls that suggest the same.

Edit.

Funny old thing, an article just published in the Torygraph answers a lot of my questions.

So when people demand policy detail, when they keep on saying, "But what are you going to do?", they do not quite mean what they say. They don't actually want the detail – rather they are trying to test the character of the leader.

It is not a coincidence that Thatcher nostalgia is becoming more common. Nowadays, the old lady cannot go out for a quiet meal in a restaurant without being mobbed by people telling her to come back and run the country.

This is not so much a revival of "Thatcherism". Many of those who are interested in her now are too young to remember much of what she did or, if older, often didn't much like it at the time. It is more – at a point when British political leadership has been more discredited than at any time since September 1939 – a longing for courage and integrity in the face of crisis.

There is no longer any real belief that Labour can deal with our problems, although one should expect quite a powerful, last-minute, Mandelson-devised counter-attack about how the Tories would prevent us coming out of recession. But there is a fear that a Tory victory would be by default, with its leaders not ready, in Churchill's phrase, "to rise to the level of events".

I think there is a Thatcher lesson here, but it is a rather unexpected one. The biggest mistake of Mrs Thatcher's first administration was not that it came down too hard on public spending too fast, but that it didn't. Having promised to honour enormous public-sector pay increases before she arrived at No 10, Mrs Thatcher found that the markets did not believe her tough public-spending projections.

Hence the need for enormous interest rates (17 per cent in late 1979), and for the astonishing 1981 Budget that raised taxes in a recession and finally convinced the world that there would be no U-turn. Unlike David Cameron today, Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago was not master within her own party, and so could not be as tough as she wished.

If the Tories win the next election, they will not have the trade union agonies that afflicted Britain then. But the state of the public finances is even worse than it was in 1979 – the deficit roughly twice as large as a percentage of GDP. So public spending will be the first problem; they will have to make Margaret Thatcher look like what I believe is called a big girl's blouse. And they know it. But can you be surprised that they are slightly reluctant to say it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-quite-say.html

Edited by mbga9pgf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....apathy will bring total wipe-out for the country ....fight the low lifes on both sides..... <_<

I wrote to my MP only six months ago (Conservative). Mine was much shorter and ruder.

Its all wasted on them - they serve other masters (both parties). On this occasion it is a debt fuelled oligarch with a somewhat obvious money laundering operation but I can´t prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work. It'll be the first letter Osbourne receives that contains footnotes. If he doesn't read it then I think it says a lot about the calibre of MP's that now represent us.

Ideologically the Tory's are in a bit of a hole, they're fudging all the big issues. If I was a supporter then I'd be demanding to know where they now stand.

Are they:

For large governments or against.

Pro EU or not.

Pro government led stimulus and bailouts or not.

Pro business and free market, or a high tax party that wants to regulate finance.

Are they Green, and does this entail more government intervention, and if so how does this fit with Conservative ideology.

And the big one: Do they think high house prices are good or bad for the economy?

The least I would expect if I was a supporter would be a straight answer on these issues. Maybe I'm not following them closely enough but they appear to be lost and unable to glavanise support for a party decision one way or another on anything of significance.

Edited by chefdave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he doesn't read it then I think it says a lot about the calibre of MP's that now represent us.

As I mentioned on another thread I used to work as an MP's caseworker, and sorry to say but I sincerely doubt the letter would even reach the MP let alone be read by them. If George's office runs anything like my office then the caseworker will read your strapline and attach a sticky to an intern which says "standard mortgage policy" and the MP will get a letter to sign for you that says "thanks for your letter, here's our mortgage policy".

The only way to get your point across and have them acted on is to visit them at surgeries and make a calm, considered case for your view. This even works on occasion, although generally for smaller things, like getting a recycling bin delivered.

As a caseworker I was concerned with helping the people I could and fending off the ones I can't, and for the most part that meant keeping the MP as far away from the problem as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the 'nobody will read it, so its not worth sending it' attitude.

Its a numbers game like anything else.

Ive written letters complaining about housing, and sent it to a few local MP's who did not respond.

They all have email addresses ending Imathievingshit@parliament.uk

I did get a couple of responses. My letters started out years ago, really polite and inquisitive about initatives like FTBI/Homebuy etc.

But after ten years of being priced out, and the bailouts, and the MP's flipping houses, and losing my job, because of the bankers greed, and paying taxes out of my savings which goes to the bankers, who lent my thick as pigshit lying BTL landlord [who lied on his BTL application,to buy the house I live in,] loads of money jts because he could scrawl his mark, and whom does not work, because Ive paid for his lifestyle....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

My letters and emails to these thieving incompetent tossbag MP's became completely vile.

And deservedly so. And rightly so. And they deserve a lot more pain than a few unkind words.

[Admittedly I thought IP blocker was hiding my location and identity, until I checked recently and discovered it actually does not hide me at all, and gives my real address. Which was a little concerning, seeing as I was writing pages to A darling telling him what a complete F**** T*** BA**** ********* CU**** the incompetent ******* in government are. ] :unsure::unsure::blink:

Back on subject. [i can rant for England at the moment] Frank Field Labour MP responded to my letter. But I only got a personal response because I sent it out to a few.

The time you lot spend typing your comment to tell people its not worth it, is all it takes to send an email to your local MP.

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with the 'nobody will read it, so its not worth sending it' attitude.

I don't say it's not worth it, it clearly is sometimes.

But you need to understand the limits of what an MP can actually do. Very few MPs get to radically change laws. They are glorified magistrates, without any legal power. All they have is whatever influence they can generate.

What you *can* do is get them to do small things, and build up from there. Give you an example, a case I was involved in was around anti social behaviour. A woman came to surgery and asked the MP to meet their neighbourhood association. So they did. Easy enough to do and might win over a few voters. 6 months later as issues escalated and the MP remained involved the problem family was being moved out by the housing association. A letter at the start saying 'get rid of these f**** chavs' would have got a brush off response.

No MP is going to help you fix the financial system, you will get the standard brush off. But you might be able to get involved in a small scale local protest at a local bank to protest against bankers bonuses, for example, and build up the pressure from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i often email my m.p to complain about policies. she does actually read them although she has no intention of acting upon them. the problem is that everyone complains to each other and forums such as this but in general no can be bothered to contact their m.p. when my m.p gets one of my emails , she thinks " oh, it's just that nutter dave again"and replies politely but does nothing . but if everyone wrote to their m.p then they would be concerned for their seat and take action.

i've just realised , of course, it's because there is only me writing to her that she has the time to read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.