[slackline]

Good point on the slavery aspect there Jas, I reckon that could be a very simple, powerful & legal case for stopping this debauched practice.

[fried]

How is this in any way good for anyone apart from the (already massively profitable) companies involved? How has it come to this?

Well, I imagine it's also good for the goverment in keeping down unemployment figures now nobody can afford to go to university.

It's come to this because all the young/ students/ teachers/ public-sector workers/ private-sector workers/ nurses/ umemployed etc, are lazy, manipulative, workshy good for nothings.

[slackline]

But they're still on JSA so it does dick all for government statistics, its disguised as "work experience" not employment.

And why are people studying/teaching/working (public & private) lazy, manipulative, workshy good for nothings?  They're getting on with earning a crust, non? 


Even of those on JSA there is only a minority whom might be considered lazy, manipulative and workshy.

[Jaspersharpe]

I think that was sarcasm slackers.....

Yeah if they called it employment rather than "work experience" then presumably the minimum wage laws would have to apply so the scam wouldn't work.

[slackline]

 

[fried]

Sorry, sarcasm and computers don't mix! I'll remember the :heavy irony: next time

[Oldmanmatt]

Difficult not to get worked up about it.

So, easy to miss the sarcasm...

Just too many pompous, over privileged, gits; in parliament.

Ever has it been thus.

People do seem to be waking up, though...

[SA Chris]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-15752207

I wonder if it's the name that triggers the urges?

[fried]

Difficult not to get worked up about it.

So, easy to miss the sarcasm...

Just too many pompous, over privileged, gits; in parliament.

Ever has it been thus.

People do seem to be waking up, though...

Yes, but sadly not enough people will do anything as long as a sizeable percentage of the population believe (is manipulated into believing) that another is getting a better deal than them.

Reading threads/ comments on youth unemployment on various different sites has been thouroughly depressing today.

[tomtom]

Be interesting to see what will happen to student numbers... two weeks ago our applications were 50% down on the same time last year (based on 3 year rolling average) but as of today only 2%... (a few sighs of relief...)..

Sadly, I suspect theres ferk all prospects for school leavers out there other than get nuts deep in debt.

If I were 18 again I'd borrow as much as I could, have a great time at University, get a degree and piss off to Australia.

[Oldmanmatt]

Be interesting to see what will happen to student numbers... two weeks ago our applications were 50% down on the same time last year (based on 3 year rolling average) but as of today only 2%... (a few sighs of relief...)..

Sadly, I suspect theres ferk all prospects for school leavers out there other than get nuts deep in debt.

If I were 18 again I'd borrow as much as I could, have a great time at University, get a degree and piss off to Australia.

 

See you in the airport...

[BB]

If I were 18 again any age I'd borrow as much as I could, have a great time at University spearmint rhino, get a degree plane ticket and piss off to Australia.

Fine plan

[Oldmanmatt]

It's going to be a crowded plane...

[Jaspersharpe]

Deeley Meal bang on with it's stats as per:

http://twitter.com/?photo_id=1#/JonathanHaynes/status/137489685235777536/photo/1

[Fultonius]

Northern Rock looks like it might be about to turn a profit, must be about time to sell it on the cheap to one of you palls George old boy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15769886

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/osborne-to-use-%C2%A3747m-from-northern-rock-sale-to-bail-out-new-owners-201111174558/

[Jaspersharpe]

That Mash piece is as amusing as ever.

Not sure about the timing of this sale and I'm sure plenty of George's pals will be getting very rich out of the deal (consultancy fees etc) but one thing is very wrong about the reporting on Northern Rock and has been since the start of the crisis and that's the description of NRAM as the "bad bank" where all the assets are "toxic". Everyone has been doing this from the start and in fact before NR was nationalised a lot of it's problems were caused by market fears fucking up the share price and the run on the bank that this created. If that hadn't happened then it's possible that the emergency funding from the BOE would have been sufficient to sort out the problems in the short term and nationalisation might not have been necessary. Confidence in whether or not the loans will be defaulted on rather than them ACTUALLY defaulting and having to be written off.

A hell of a lot of the £21bn in assets that NRAM holds are perfectly normal loans and mortgages which are being repaid perfectly normally and will continue to be. All they did was shift anything that had the possibility to be defaulted on without sufficient security into NRAM, but that includes all unsecured personal loans and mortgages which were higher than the asset value at the time, many of which have now been repaid to the point where they are not. I know plenty of people with such loans and mortagages and none of them are about to default. In fact I spoke to an IFA the other week who told me that the NR 125% mortgage deal was one of the least defaulted on products he'd seen over the years and yet we are led to believe that it was this type of lending that caused all the problems. It wasn't.

I'd love to see the actual figures of how much debt was transferred into NRAM, what the balance is now and how much has actually been written off because of defaults rather than the handy terms "bad bank" and "toxic assets" being bandied about by the likes of Peston and Faisal Islam.

[slackline]

Not just UK police who are heavy handed

[Fultonius]

Interesting insight jas, it's amazing how the fear of share prices dropping can be enough to actually make them nosedive!

[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

Ken Clarke. Nail. Hammer. Hit. Head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15801960


He added: "When some official, some policeman, whoever, has made some mistake in taking some absurd decision, the first thing they do to fend off criticism is to blame it on health and safety and blame it on human rights. The truth is that someone's made a pig's ear in the office."

[tomtom]

Ken Clarke. Hammer. Hit. Head. Dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15801960


He added: "When some official, some policeman, whoever, has made some mistake in taking some absurd decision, the first thing they do to fend off criticism is to blame it on health and safety and blame it on human rights. The truth is that someone's made a pig's ear in the office."

[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

INRATS.

Somebody tell me what I need to know.

P74. witness statement, interesting, apparrently.

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E323B324-E7F3-471B-B3C5-BC5C2F7F6625/0/MC_ProceedingsBundle.pdf

[Jaspersharpe]

Be interested to know what people think about the idea of government backed mortgages for FTBs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15810966

I'm not usually one to agree with government policy and it would be all to easy to jump on the bandwagon that's already off and running and slag this idea off as idiotic.........

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/let-s-not-go-back-sub-prime-loans

......but I reckon this is simplistic and totally missing the point. The financial crisis wasn't caused by UK banks sustaining massive losses on UK repossessions anyway. If you look at the actual figures then it's a myth. Repossessions reached a high in 2008 of 103k but this was only up about 39k on "normal" levels (say in 2005).

Even if you were generous and said that banks sustained losses of £100k per repo (some would have been way way less) that would still mean less than £4bn more than during a normal year, £10bn in total or in other words FUCK ALL in comparison to the crippling losses they were facing because of the US sub prime lending mess. 95% mortgages didn't cause that either. Lending huge sums to people who were never going to stand a chance of paying the money back and calling the debt a AAA rated asset to be traded round the world did.

I've seen a lot of people saying this is just a mechanism to prop up unsustainable house prices but while this might be the case in London and parts of the South East I know that where I live the problem for FTBs isn't the price it's the requirement of a stupidly high deposit.

I haven't looked at the details yet but on the face of it a plan to get banks lending to people who can afford a mortgage but not a 20% deposit (or 25% to get a decent interest rate) has to be a good thing (if it is combined with sensible house building policies).

Hasn't it? 

[Jaspersharpe]

Of course, as with every economic argument it's not hard to find someone who agrees with you / has the completely opposite viewpoint to what other economists are saying!

http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/001540.html

[tommytwotone]

Be interested to know what people think about the idea of government backed mortgages for FTBs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15810966

Interesting it's on new-build only.

I say interesting as in many cases I think that's where a lot of the uncertainty is...consider all of the posh new cosmopolitain flats build in cities like Sheffield, Leeds etc - does anyone know what they're actually worth?

Does anybody actually want to buy any of this type of property? I know that the firm behind Granary Wharf are falling over themselves to get shot of stuff at the moment.

There's a school of though that the explosion of flats in the early-mid 2000s was essentially building a load of stuff that nobody wants.

I think most developers thought that hip young things in their 20s would want to sip cappucinos on the balcony of these places, but the reality is that most of them want a house, a garden, a spare room, parking etc.

Or they though that middle-aged singles / divorcess would want a cool pad in the city so that they could relive their youth / enjoy their new-found freedom / sip cappucinos on the balcony...but the reality is that they want a spare room for when the kids visit at the weekends, a garden, somewhere to park etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, they've sold in their droves to wannabe BTL landlords who are currently housing / ripping off this missed generation of homebuyer, but who's buying them to actually live in?

Sorry, off-topic.

In my opinion, "getting Britain building" isn't really the issue - looking around there's a decent amount of stock on the market (maybe with the exception of London, but if you want to buy property in London, good luck with that...), it's "getting Britain buying" that's the issue.

(the crisis)...95% mortgages didn't cause that either. Lending huge sums to people who were never going to stand a chance of paying the money back and calling the debt a AAA rated asset to be traded round the world did...

...I know that where I live the problem for FTBs isn't the price it's the requirement of a stupidly high deposit.

Amen to that. Pulling high LTV mortgages for FTB was the biggest knee-jerk mistake that was made IMO, and the reason why there's zero liquidity in this market at the moment. Shutting off the sub-prime stuff was what was needed, but FTBs have been collatoral damage in this shutting of the stable door after the horse bolted.

The problem's going to be stopping the BTL carpet baggers from invading what should rightly be an initiative to get FTBs buying again, though how you stop that in an environment where the builders, agents, mortgage firms etc are all getting a slice of mortgage approvals would be tricky.

I haven't looked at the details yet but on the face of it a plan to get banks lending to people who can afford a mortgage but not a 20% deposit (or 25% to get a decent interest rate) has to be a good thing (if it is combined with sensible house building policies).

Agree with the point on deposits (god knows I'll be getting humped with my piffling 5% I've saved up), but why not open it up to all property?

Surely forcing the lenders to actually lend sensibly at higher LTVs, controlling the use of that type of product (i.e. applicants must prove / be certificated FTB) is the crux of the issue here.

[Jaspersharpe]

Hadn't seen it was only for new build properties as I was too busy doing my back of fag packet calculations but I agree entirely that it should be for all FTBs not just new builds.

consider all of the posh new cosmopolitain flats build in cities like Sheffield, Leeds etc - does anyone know what they're actually worth?

One bedroom city centre appartments are selling for anything from  about £70k to £100k (agents asking for £120k for new flats in the St Pauls development aren't likely to get £120k imo). There are also plenty of shared ownership schemes available on some of them from around £50k.

Perspective - you can get a decent 3 bed terrace in a nice area with a garden for £115k.