It is up to people to live within their means and be responsible with money, if they are not then tough

 

Someone taking out a mortgage should not just save for the deposit but save a further 6 months payment as back up for a 'rainy day'

 

 

Using the Jobs motto it is better for someone to take a risk and buy a house, if it doesn't work out then shit happens and massive respect to them for taking the risk

Apparently these two things were said by the same person within 90 minutes.

Apparently these two things were said by the same person within 90 minutes.

 

I don't see any double standard

 

Taking risks in life does not mean being reckless and irresponsible

 

 

Like I could withdraw every penny I have in my accounts and sell all the shares I own and go down to a casino and put the lot on a roulette wheel, red or black

 

Does that make me brave and ballsy?

 

No it makes me a f***ing idiot who deserves to lose the lot

Edited October 30, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

I don't see any double standard

 

Taking risks in life does not mean being reckless and irresponsible

 

which is what i was saying about planning ahead, if one applies for mortgages without a comfortable cushion based on your current income to allow for interest increases then, to use your words, thats being reckless and irresponsible and they deserve everything they get. Hardly innovative and risk-taking is it? Fairly mundane financial sense really. I said nothing about not applying for mortgages. Steve Jobs planned ahead well. If he hadn't he would have crashed and burned, unless his empire is based on flukey chance. Which it wasn't. A wise man spots pitfalls ahead and plans, an idiot jumps in based on wishful thinking. That's why the economy is screwed by the way.......

 

So wait a minute, if George Osborne was offering you a financial incentive (20% say of interest-free government money) to take out all of your investments and savings and gamble it on:

 

1) the housing market continuing to strengthen

2) Interest rates not rising greater than inflation/wages as to not squeeze repayments

 

You wouldn't call that irresponsible? And you would lose respect for people who are being sensible, saving well and not borrowing FAR beyond their means just to prop-up a housing market. :// I am lost with you sometimes Craig! :(

He was right though

 

Using the Jobs motto it is better for someone to take a risk and buy a house, if it doesn't work out then shit happens and massive respect to them for taking the risk

 

Someone who just sits on their ass and doesn't take the risk and ends up renting all their life deserves less respect

 

Plus you overestimate the influence Gideon has, interest rates etc are out of his hands, they are set by the independent Mark Carney, one of the worlds most respected economists if not the most respected, he is no Osborne puppet

Interest rates are NOT set by Mark Carney. They are set by the Monetary Policy Committee which he chairs. He has one vote, the same as the other members. As for Carney himself, we know that Osborne thinks very highly of him but many people probably find that rather worrying. I hope he is successful in the job but I'll judge him on results, not the opinion of a single politician for whom I have little or no respect.

which is what i was saying about planning ahead, if one applies for mortgages without a comfortable cushion based on your current income to allow for interest increases then, to use your words, thats being reckless and irresponsible and they deserve everything they get. Hardly innovative and risk-taking is it? Fairly mundane financial sense really. I said nothing about not applying for mortgages. Steve Jobs planned ahead well. If he hadn't he would have crashed and burned, unless his empire is based on flukey chance. Which it wasn't. A wise man spots pitfalls ahead and plans, an idiot jumps in based on wishful thinking. That's why the economy is screwed by the way.......

 

These days a lot of people seem to think having enough for a deposit is enough and that they can sit back and watch their wealth develop massively on paper, sure, that can happe but they are over extending themselves, far more sensible is saving for the deposit and having a contingency fund

 

It is taking a gamble in the sense they are breaking away from the renting sector but it is stupidity to buy and over stretch yourself like many will do

 

In 15 years time those that took a gamble and bought a house but didn't break the bank will be quids in, those that leapt straight in without any thought or money kept by for problems will have got their fingers burnt

 

Well done to the first group, right thinking

Interesting study here:

 

http://classonline.org.uk/news/latest/new-...are-not-benefit

 

74% think the government should have power to control electricity and gas prices

72% think the same with public transport fares

65% are not confident that enough has been done to avoid another crash like 2008

Almost 4 in 5 feel they haven't benefitted from the economic recovery

 

Oh dear.

 

 

Interesting study here:

 

http://classonline.org.uk/news/latest/new-...are-not-benefit

 

74% think the government should have power to control electricity and gas prices

72% think the same with public transport fares

65% are not confident that enough has been done to avoid another crash like 2008

Almost 4 in 5 feel they haven't benefitted from the economic recovery

 

Oh dear.

 

To be expected

 

But

 

1)There is another 18 months to go till the election

 

2)The economic recovery while gathering steam is quite fresh - last 3-6 months

 

3)People are living on this years pay rises (or pay freezes) in most cases awarded when the economy was doing badly

 

4)This time next year people will likely have got bigger pay rises due to healthier economy and business doing better

 

The poll result this time next year will be very different imho bar the energy companies stuff

 

To be expected

 

But

 

1)There is another 18 months to go till the election

 

2)The economic recovery while gathering steam is quite fresh - last 3-6 months

 

3)People are living on this years pay rises (or pay freezes) in most cases awarded when the economy was doing badly

 

4)This time next year people will likely have got bigger pay rises due to healthier economy and business doing better

 

The poll result this time next year will be very different imho bar the energy companies stuff

The only one of the four figures quoted which might change significantly over the next year is the last one. I see no reason why the others will change much. Certainly there is no evidence yet of a return to real terms pay rises - apart from FTSE 100 executives of course, but then they never suffered from real terms pay cuts in the first place.

The only one of the four figures quoted which might change significantly over the next year is the last one. I see no reason why the others will change much. Certainly there is no evidence yet of a return to real terms pay rises - apart from FTSE 100 executives of course, but then they never suffered from real terms pay cuts in the first place.

 

The issues that are affecting people is not resulting in the kind of lead Miliband needs if he wants to win the next election though

 

With 18 months to go before 2010 election I remember Cameron having a lead of not far off 20% and he only just scraped into #10, Kinnock and Foot also had far bigger leads at one point than Miliband has ever had and both failed to be PM

 

There may be real problems out there but the public doesn't see Ed as the answer to them

Edited November 1, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

The issues that are affecting people is not resulting in the kind of lead Miliband needs if he wants to win the next election though

 

With 18 months to go before 2010 election I remember Cameron having a lead of not far off 20% and he only just scraped into #10, Kinnock and Foot also had far bigger leads at one point than Miliband has ever had and both failed to be PM

 

There may be real problems out there but the public doesn't see Ed as the answer to them

And where did I say otherwise?

 

BTW, I've just checked (it took less than two minutes). The Tory lead at the beginning of November 2008 was 9%, not 20. It briefly hit 20% in August 2008 and was in the mid to high teens for much of 2009 when the recession really began to bite.

Interesting study here:

 

http://classonline.org.uk/news/latest/new-...are-not-benefit

 

74% think the government should have power to control electricity and gas prices

72% think the same with public transport fares

65% are not confident that enough has been done to avoid another crash like 2008

Almost 4 in 5 feel they haven't benefitted from the economic recovery

 

Oh dear.

 

An opinion poll conducted out by a think tank that just happens to agree with the political position of said think tank? What are the chances of that happening?

 

 

I'm not a fan of privitization, but one thing I dislike more are opinion polls. The only opinion you're likely to get is one which matches the politics of those conducting it.

And where did I say otherwise?

 

BTW, I've just checked (it took less than two minutes). The Tory lead at the beginning of November 2008 was 9%, not 20. It briefly hit 20% in August 2008 and was in the mid to high teens for much of 2009 when the recession really began to bite.

 

Not good at all for Ed then, I never recall him ever getting up to 20%, 11% is about the biggest i can personally recall

Not good at all for Ed then, I never recall him ever getting up to 20%, 11% is about the biggest i can personally recall

It has occasionally reached the low teens. That is why I don't expect Labour to win a majority at the next election. My current guess is that they will be the largest party in another hung parliament.

An opinion poll conducted out by a think tank that just happens to agree with the political position of said think tank? What are the chances of that happening?

 

 

I'm not a fan of privitization, but one thing I dislike more are opinion polls. The only opinion you're likely to get is one which matches the politics of those conducting it.

A think tank is likely to discard poll questions that it didn't like the answer to but it's hard to warp answers like that. They're consistent with other studies and I have no reason not to believe them.

A think tank is likely to discard poll questions that it didn't like the answer to but it's hard to warp answers like that. They're consistent with other studies and I have no reason not to believe them.

Opinion polls can be broadly trusted. Opinion polls commissioned by certain organisations like think tanks need to be taken with a few pinches of salt, given they tend to follow the old lawyer's dictum of 'never ask a question to which you don't already know what the answer will be', and especially because they only tend to show one side of the story. Here's an article I quite like from a while back which analysed another of Class's polls.

The issues that are affecting people is not resulting in the kind of lead Miliband needs if he wants to win the next election though

 

With 18 months to go before 2010 election I remember Cameron having a lead of not far off 20% and he only just scraped into #10, Kinnock and Foot also had far bigger leads at one point than Miliband has ever had and both failed to be PM

 

There may be real problems out there but the public doesn't see Ed as the answer to them

 

It's a total myth that the government is guaranteed to get a "swing back" when an election comes. At every single one of the last 3 elections, Labour ended up getting a real vote share which was LESS than their average poll rating in the 4/5 years before when they were in government (it's true the Conservatives did considerably worse in 2010 than his average poll ratings for the 5 years before had indicated, but that was entirely due to loads of people who were previously saying they would vote Tory going to the Lib Dems, NOT back to Labour).

 

Plus, the idea of a "swingback" makes no sense in this case because, even as it is, very few people who voted Conservative in 2010 are even saying they'll vote Labour in the opinion polls even now. Labour's increase since 2010 comes almost entirely from former Lib Dem voters .... so, in other words, even if the Conservatives claw back every single person who voted for them in 2010 but have now switched over to Labour, that would STILL probably leave Labour ahead unless those former Lib Dems go elsewhere.

Edited November 1, 201311 yr by Danny

It's a total myth that the government is guaranteed to get a "swing back" when an election comes. At every single one of the last 3 elections, Labour ended up getting a real vote share which was LESS than their average poll rating in the 4/5 years before when they were in government (it's true the Conservatives did considerably worse in 2010 than his average poll ratings for the 5 years before had indicated, but that was entirely due to loads of people who were previously saying they would vote Tory going to the Lib Dems, NOT back to Labour).

 

Plus, the idea of a "swingback" makes no sense in this case because, even as it is, very few people who voted Conservative in 2010 are even saying they'll vote Labour in the opinion polls even now. Labour's increase since 2010 comes almost entirely from former Lib Dem voters .... so, in other words, even if the Conservatives claw back every single person who voted for them in 2010 but have now switched over to Labour, that would STILL probably leave Labour ahead unless those former Lib Dems go elsewhere.

You're right, but the real risk is if the Conservatives get swingback from UKIP. Which doesn't bode well for their 2015 manifesto...

Edited November 1, 201311 yr by Cassandra

It's a total myth that the government is guaranteed to get a "swing back" when an election comes. At every single one of the last 3 elections, Labour ended up getting a real vote share which was LESS than their average poll rating in the 4/5 years before when they were in government (it's true the Conservatives did considerably worse in 2010 than his average poll ratings for the 5 years before had indicated, but that was entirely due to loads of people who were previously saying they would vote Tory going to the Lib Dems, NOT back to Labour).

 

Plus, the idea of a "swingback" makes no sense in this case because, even as it is, very few people who voted Conservative in 2010 are even saying they'll vote Labour in the opinion polls even now. Labour's increase since 2010 comes almost entirely from former Lib Dem voters .... so, in other words, even if the Conservatives claw back every single person who voted for them in 2010 but have now switched over to Labour, that would STILL probably leave Labour ahead unless those former Lib Dems go elsewhere.

 

Tyron hit the nail on the head

 

The majority of the 10% who currently vote UKIP will vote conservative at the next election

 

No right wing person would want a labour government and a vote on election day for UKIP is effectively a vote for labour

 

I predict UKIP won't get a single MP and no more than about 4% of the vote