Sledgehead Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 So today was the day when Ed Balls revealed his cunning plan to revive the economy. The conference liked it. Butthen again they liked Gordon Brown's approach to economics and look where that got us. Yep, they love people who haven't clue about finance. Hardly surprising then that the real star of the day was a fresh-faced 16 year old thumping the tub for more public spending. I think what really won over the hall was not so much his age or naivety however, but his genes. During the speech he admitted that his parents had been reposessed two years ago from the family home he had grown up in. Taking him at his word (why shouldn't I?), that means his parents owned the house in 1996-97. It's entirely plausible that they lived in the house for 2-3 years before they had him. ither way, we can see that they held the house during the biggest property boom in history. They accumulated 14 years of equity where the average house price rose from £73k to more than £200k. Even after the financial crisis they should still be sitting (if they lived in an average house) on something like £100k of equity. And yet they got repo'd. With financial genes like that the lad could easily make Labour party shadow chancellor, and maybe even PM. No wonder they loved him in the hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Hardly surprising then that the real star of the day was a fresh-faced 16 year old thumping the tub for more public spending. William Hague mk. II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmarks Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Fetus lectures nation on how to run its own affairs. Could probably do a better job than the last lot mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Taking him at his word (why shouldn't I?), that means his parents owned the house in 1996-97. It's entirely plausible that they lived in the house for 2-3 years before they had him. ither way, we can see that they held the house during the biggest property boom in history. They accumulated 14 years of equity where the average house price rose from £73k to more than £200k. Even after the financial crisis they should still be sitting (if they lived in an average house) on something like £100k of equity. And yet they got repo'd. Of course a 16 year old wannabe politician would never lie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 William Hague mk. II? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Taking him at his word (why shouldn't I?), that means his parents owned the house in 1996-97. It's entirely plausible that they lived in the house for 2-3 years before they had him. ither way, we can see that they held the house during the biggest property boom in history. They accumulated 14 years of equity where the average house price rose from £73k to more than £200k. Even after the financial crisis they should still be sitting (if they lived in an average house) on something like £100k of equity. What a surprise. He wants more free money. Twists it the Labour way by saying jobless rate for young was falling under Labour thanks to their Future Jobs or something fund, they sank yet more money into. Wants EMA and all the other Labour benefits back and against cuts in housing benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Wants EMA and all the other Labour benefits back and against cuts in housing benefit. Ed Balls should reprimand him. Mr Balls has ordered Labour frontbenchers to clear any spending commitments, however small, with him and Ed Miliband I guess jumped up piss weasels like Rory are exempt from this edict? Ed Balls won't pledge to reverse coalition cuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Well at least he admitted that the home was repossessed under the Labour government (2 1/2 years ago is what I heard him say). How did that go down with the faithful. It was hard to be repossessed in those days with all the various benefits and I'm not sure it's that much easier to repossess these days although his claim was that benefits are draconian now but is that supported by the facts. Isn't the Coalition claiming austerity but not doing much yet. It all seems so much bluff by all concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 The Repossessed. Another career politician in the making. Programmed, clueless and very naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Most of his pier group won't be getting repossessed as they will never be buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Most of his pier group won't be getting repossessed as they will never be buying. Thought most of the piers got burned down in insurance jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Thought most of the piers got burned down in insurance jobs? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diver Dan Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 What a surprise. He wants more free money. Twists it the Labour way by saying jobless rate for young was falling under Labour thanks to their Future Jobs or something fund, they sank yet more money into. Wants EMA and all the other Labour benefits back and against cuts in housing benefit. It pains me to say it, but I thing William Hague did a more enjoyable speech. Where were the jokes FFS ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 What a surprise. He wants more free money. Twists it the Labour way by saying jobless rate for young was falling under Labour thanks to their Future Jobs or something fund, they sank yet more money into. Wants EMA and all the other Labour benefits back and against cuts in housing benefit. Oh dear. It was the last government who put the biggest divide between the young and the old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Even after the financial crisis they should still be sitting (if they lived in an average house) on something like £100k of equity. And yet they got repo'd. With financial genes like that the lad could easily make Labour party shadow chancellor, and maybe even PM. No wonder they loved him in the hall. To be fair - you get repo'd if you can't afford the mortgage: doesn't matter how much equity you have. If both his parents lost their jobs, that would do it. Even though I disagree with Labour's policies, I still thought his speech was excellent for a 16 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yokel Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 During the speech he admitted that his parents had been reposessed two years ago from the family home he had grown up in. Taking him at his word (why shouldn't I?), that means his parents owned the house in 1996-97. It's entirely plausible that they lived in the house for 2-3 years before they had him. ither way, we can see that they held the house during the biggest property boom in history. They accumulated 14 years of equity where the average house price rose from £73k to more than £200k. Even after the financial crisis they should still be sitting (if they lived in an average house) on something like £100k of equity. And yet they got repo'd. Exactly my thoughts when I saw it. Other than unfortunate circumstances (illness etc) anyone with a house bought in the 90s should at the very least be able to sell up and rent like millions of others do. I suspect a lot of mewing went on. My next thought was how cynical of Labour to put the boy on the stage to make that speech. His 5 minutes of fame could lead to some detailed digging by the Mail, Sun etc to find out just why the family had no money, and how much benefits they receive etc. They could end up as a Tory weapon if there are any cracks at all in the tale of a hard working family helped out by the caring labour party. Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lulu Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Oh dear. It was the last government who put the biggest divide between the young and the old. That was pointed out to some Labour delegate at the conference on Radio 5 earlier, it was dismissed straight away as some falacy that did not happen. It is odd there are so many Labour devotees who seem convinced that 1997 - 2010 simply did not happen - it is like the nasty Tories were in power for a long time and now they are in again and something happened in between that they are not prepared to admit to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lulu Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 To be fair - you get repo'd if you can't afford the mortgage: doesn't matter how much equity you have. If both his parents lost their jobs, that would do it. Even though I disagree with Labour's policies, I still thought his speech was excellent for a 16 year old. But if they bought the house (as was suggested) in 1996/1997 they would have paid a sensible amount for it (back then apparently banks checked salaries and restricted lending). It surprises me how many people at my work who must have paid naff all for their houses 15/20 years ago yet still have mortgages, if I had bought a flat 10+ years ago - as I tried to do but did not have the permenant contract required for the mortgage I would have most of (if not it all paid back by now...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 During the speech he admitted that his parents had been reposessed two years ago from the family home he had grown up in. Taking him at his word (why shouldn't I?), that means his parents owned the house in 1996-97. It's entirely plausible that they lived in the house for 2-3 years before they had him. ither way, we can see that they held the house during the biggest property boom in history. They accumulated 14 years of equity where the average house price rose from £73k to more than £200k. Even after the financial crisis they should still be sitting (if they lived in an average house) on something like £100k of equity. Also - he only said "home": it could have been a tiny flat. And when he said "grown up" in it, that doesn't mean they already owned it when he was born. He could have lived in it from (say) age 4 through to 14 i.e. it was bought in 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englebert Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Dunno why but I hate all young Politician's. They must have had such a weird upbringing. Are they on some kind of power trip or something? Get back to the 6th Form disco young man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 It pains me to say it, but I thing William Hague did a more enjoyable speech. Where were the jokes FFS ?????? The jokes were sat on the platform boom, boom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Dunno why but I hate all young Politician's. They must have had such a weird upbringing. Are they on some kind of power trip or something? Get back to the 6th Form disco young man! You are Anders Breivik and I claim my 5 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Also - he only said "home": it could have been a tiny flat. And when he said "grown up" in it, that doesn't mean they already owned it when he was born. He could have lived in it from (say) age 4 through to 14 i.e. it was bought in 1999. He specifically said "born in" if you listen to the speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackgoose Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 A quite well delivered speech given his age and the pressure - however that does not conceal the typically self centered content. Though I dont believe it was as good as young William's, and would bet that there are many children who could speak like that after some acting lessons. He benefitted from various payments such as EMA, housing benefits, and will now have to take out more student debt than before, so surprise surprise, these are the things he complains about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englebert Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 You are Anders Breivik and I claim my 5 pounds. Don't know who this guy is...and to be frank, can't even be bothered to Google the name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.