Nick Clegg today is proudly announcing a coalition housing policy which is perhaps the maddest thing the government has come up with yet (though that is a tough competition). Apparently the answer to housing problems is to find ways to enable people to take on yet more debt, being helped by government to find deposits which they will however ultimately have to repay in addition to the ordinary mortgage.
In effect the government thinks that the only problem with the housing market, is that it is not as it was in early 2008. The government supports ludicrous inflated house prices, giving the economy an entirely fictional huge monetary value asset base, sustained by mortgages of 100% or more on the inflated value, amounting to many multiples of the debtor’s income.
The answer to housing availability is not for the government to find ways to enable young people to take on unrealistic amounts of debt so they can afford fake prices. The answer in the owned sector is for house prices to crash down to realistic levels which people can actually afford.
These government proposals are the precise opposite of what is needed.
The primary answer in the rented sector is for local councils to build public housing and rent it to people at genuinely affordable prices. There are a huge number of brownfield sites which can be utilised and a huge number of empty buildings ripe for conversion – including many of those empty shops. 50% of the “printed” money created by the Bank of England in the last round of Quantitative Easing exercise, and given to the banks, would have built 400,000 family homes if given to local authorities for that purpose. Think of the employment that would have created.
The UK is every bit as indebted as Greece, both as a per capita absolute and as a percentage of GDP. The difference is that Britain has more private and Greece more individual debt. But it is equally impossible to pay it back in the long term. That incredible mountain of personal debt is what has sustained Britain’s ludicrous house prices. Just as the bamks have had to take a 50% haircut on Greek debt, so also they are going, in the end, to have to take a massive haircut on their UK mortgage portfolios.
The extraordinary thing is, that those mortgages – based on totally unreasonable house valuations – constitute not liabilities but “assets” on a bank’s balance sheet, and the banksters have been able to “leverage” those assets to make speculative financial transactions – or bets – to the valuse of 12 times the “asset”.
These are some my policy prescriptions:
Give local authorities money to build 400,000 new council houses for truly social rent levels, using cash from quantitative easing
nationalise all housing association property and give to local councils as council housing
wipe off 50% of all outstanding mortgages
watch house prices crash, and cheer!
That may sound extreme to some of you. But I promise you it is infinitely more sensible than the incredible folly the government has just produced.
Craig what you said will never ever be adopted by any government, because it doesn’t increase money made by the usurious bankers.
The Zionist bankers bank role the election campaigns of all three parties, so the point is to get people to borrow more and pay more usury to the banks. Not less.
Craig
Think what would happen with a 50% forgiveness on all mortgages – house prices would rocket! All those buy-to-let landlords would have extra cash to invest and where would they put it? Homeowners subsidised by renters. Landlords further subsidised by tenants.
Debt forgiveness can only work as part of some sort of bankruptcy package.
As for housing associations, as Wikipedia put it “Housing associations in the United Kingdom are independent not-for-profit bodies that provide low-cost “social housing” for people in housing need. Any trading surplus is used to maintain existing homes and to help finance new ones.” Some seem bad, many do a good job. It does not seem likely that giving their houses back to local authorities to manage would revolutionise anything.
Extra cash for social housing – definitely! Either to local authorities or to housing associations.
Arsalan, most of these banksters are just plain crooked, a greedy bunch of immoral thieves and liars with corrupt politicians in their pockets. Zionism has nothing to do with their behaviour. Seriously, I think you’d blame Zionists if you got a flat tyre.
MS Editorial
.
Time to end the grumbling
Monday 21 November 2011
David Cameron’s so-called “ambitious new strategy” to tackle the housing crisis is neither ambitious nor new.
Its effect on the dire housing situation will be minimal. Indeed its motivation is less aimed at putting homeless people into homes of their own than at handing over more public assets to the private sector.
The private housebuilding sector – construction companies and banks – has failed dismally to deliver over decades except in the area of making higher profits, yet this is the vehicle chosen by the coalition government to deal with a chronic problem.
It’s an indication of how lightly the government takes this problem that its headline figure is just £400 million, when it slashed 10 times that figure from housing last year.
Cameron’s intention is not to deal decisively with the growing demand for homes but to hand over public finance and public land to the speculators who already have plenty of both.
And the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce “regulation and other burdens on house-builders” will send shivers down the spines of those fighting to protect greenbelt land and those defending health and safety at work.
Despite the bold assertions of Cabinet members, most of whom, as beneficiaries of inherited wealth and privilege, have never had to find a proper job, regulations are on the statute book for good reasons.
Big business wants an end to them because deregulation promises increased profitability, but it is paid for in vandalism of the countryside and death and injury for construction workers.
Cameron doesn’t explain why the taxpayer should stand in for the financial sector by guaranteeing the 95 per cent mortgages being offered to new buyers.
Isn’t that what banks and building societies are supposed to be for?
All of them have already benefited from the government’s quantitative easing measures that have funnelled cheap cash to the finance sector, supposedly to enable them to loan money to small businesses and would-be homebuyers.
But in spite of cosy platitudes from the government, banks still refuse to risk their ample assets on social necessities such as economic development and buying homes.
Banks that became notorious for gambling billions on he international lottery of derivatives and toxic US property bundles are now too timid to do the job that they are supposed and for which their top executives continue to be very well rewarded.
The High Pay Commission reports that pay and bonuses for top executives are “out of control,” outstripping employees’ average pay rises and concentrating wealth on the richest 0.1 per cent of the population.
Top Barclays executive Bob Diamond was paid £4,365,636 last year while his Lloyds equivalent Eric Daniels left the company but still pocketed £2,572,000.
Such greed sickens most people, but Confederation of British Industry president Roger Carr thinks that the time has come for an end to the “demonisation” of banks and other businesses. Bless his tender skin.
Carr and his ilk expect the rest of us to continue being milked by the rich elite and to stop grumbling about it.
It probably is time indeed to end the grumbling and to opt for a more decisive approach of demanding that the banks and other vampire capitalist firms be taken into public ownership and directed to meet public need, such as council housebuilding, rather than the obscene profits enjoyed by the elite.
.
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/112212
What’s with ‘the rich elite’? You are not an elite by virtue of greed or wealth, nor knowledge if it is not truth, nor compassion to some if it discriminates against others. We look after our people by bombing the s..t out of Muslims who are sitting on oil.
My idea of an elite is those whose patience prevents them from being conned by sticking plaster ideas, and who achieve obedience to divine Law. The house price escalation system of mortgages is designed to prevent people from having time to be human beings, and from having liberty to protest. Shame on us all for not staying on the streets on the eve of the Iraq war, because we would lose our houses, jobs, etc if we ever got into the minutest whiff of trouble with the law.
Having said that, this is the situation we are in, so we cannot be too hard on ourselves. Planning law prevents us from finding cheap shelter howsoever and wheresoever we please.
I am reposting this link for Johnf. Ottaway is one to watch, for sure.
http://tzedek-tzedek.blogspot.com/
Money as Debt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
Here’s another policy idea to add to Craig’s set: transfer all land to community ownership, to end the element of inflation in house prices which is caused by profiteering by landowners. Everyone needs somewhere to live, but all the land was appropriated long before current generations came on the scene. The accident of their late arrival does not justify others in exploiting their need.
I have a son in civil engineering, and a nephew in the building industry. They agree on very little – certainly never on politics. But one thing they do agree on – the UK house-building industry is using methods that haven’t changed fundamentally in 200 years. In fact standards of construction are steadily falling as prices rise.
Given the will, they agree that £30,000 to £40,00 system-built houses are perfectly feasible. They’d be ‘pre-fabs’ but would differ in one important respect from that long-distrusted description – they’d be designed and built to last a century. And that’s a damn sight longer than many of today’s supposedly-traditionally-built houses are going to last. A new ‘executive-style’ housing estate near me – average price 180 grand – is 12 years old and already knee-deep in structural problems and subsidence.
But – we all agree – real change just isn’t going to happen. The building industry lobby has its feet well and truly under the Parliamentary table and nothing is going to change without pressure. Pressure that isn’t going to happen, unless people start waking up.
‘Apparently the answer to housing problems is to find ways to enable people to take on yet more debt, being helped by government to find deposits which they will however ultimately have to repay in addition to the ordinary mortgage.’
Government underwriting of mortgage debt a la Freddie Mac/Fanny Mae is pretty desperate I agree- look how well it has worked stateside!
The UK government instead should try to engineer a bit of house price deflation, via the following-
# a mansion tax (to discourage demand at the top end of the market)
# cuts in Housing Benefit entitlement (to reduce overconsumption of Housing at the bottom end of the market)
# an investment income surcharge (including rental income) which will help reduce speculative demand from would be ‘buy to let’ landlords for low to mid-range properties.
Of course, Shapps & Co are only keen on the second of these options, and not because of the depressive effect HB cuts should have on the Housing market, but rather on the hairshirt for the poor principle, a core belief of right wing Tories.
‘the UK house-building industry is using methods that haven’t changed fundamentally in 200 years. In fact standards of construction are steadily falling as prices rise.’
Jack is spot-on here re the low standards (by north European comparisons)prevailing in the UK construction industry, despite periodic upgrades to the statutory Building Regulations.
Good morning Lemmings and just how the bloody hell are you all? Now, if you happened to be taken unawares by such an uncharacteristically upbeat intro into what is normally a weekly venting of bile then hold on to your hats because there’s more where that came from: Yes Lemmings, I can officially announce that I am in a Good Mood today. Ok, ok, I know you guys don’t usually come to this corner of the internet for the good vibes (for they tend to be few) but I have awoken this morning with a song in my heart and a spring in my step. Why? Well maybe it’s down to the fact that I’ve got my first week off in what seems like forever coming up soon, maybe it’s because that after a month of hardware woes I’ve finally cajoled my PC into playing nicely with Battlefield 3 but largely I think it’s a consequence of last night’s episode being pretty a solid offering. Alright, so it wasn’t exactly an epic that will be remembered for generations to come but it was a sturdy encounter that went a fair way to making up for last week’s Snoozefest-upon-Tyne.
I guess the first reason why I found this episode quietly pleasing was that both of the Westminster representatives present (the Blue Team’s ever-so-slightly spivvy Grant Shapps and the Red Team’s ever-so-slightly menacing Chris Bryant) were actually really well matched. Now, these two have a fair bit in common given that although relatively new to the scene, both have been putting in the QT hours of late and the pair of them are also proving to be have a certain aptitude for TV based knockabouts. In the case of Shapps this is largely down to the fact that he’s got quite a perky delivery that fits his youthful appearance without making him look like a complete n00b. He also seems to be quite normal for a Tory frontbencher and although he can get quite fired up on the entrepreneurial juices of Thatcherism (last night’s veneration of YTS schemes being a case in point), at least he’s largely untainted by the whiff of privilege that emanates from some of his fruitier colleagues. Bryant, by contrast, is a very different kettle of fish and while Shapp’s presentation speaks of a fairly straightforward life of steady progression, Bryant’s alludes to one of drama and struggle. Whatever these drama’s may have been (and given his backstory – a gay priest who left the clergy on account of his sexuality – there have probably been a few) they seem to have left him with an instinct-driven, predatory disposition that is fascinating to watch: You can see his eyes dart about, scanning the horizon for signs of weakness in foes or danger to his person whilst his posture always seems to be that of a cat waiting to pounce.
This is not to say that either are without their flaws though, what with Shapps still not able to quite shake off that lingering air of smugness that marred his last performance and Bryant’s repeated use of proforma anecdotes (they usually go something like this: Rhonda → Constituents → Issue at hand → Saw my Mum → Something bad happened) making for slightly jarring interludes, but on the whole it was largely satisfying to watch the upper hand to-and-from between them and in fairness to both they managed to keep the party political bits to an acceptable level of torridness. Good show chaps.
So that was all well and good but the real main event for me was Simon Jenkins, a man I have an inexplicable brain crush on. Here’s why:
Simon Jenkins cares not two-hoots what either you, I or Christ himself thinks about anything. You’ve got an opinion? Bully for you. Simon Jenkins also has one and it’s forceful. His opinion is going to beat up your opinion and there’s nothing you can do about it.
His face is terrifying in HD, what with all those gullies and crevices that look like they’ve been hewn by tiny glaciers. He also has the most threatening smile I’ve ever seen and one that’s permanently affixed to his fortress of a face. It’s the sort of smile that Killer Whales have just before they mess up some penguins.
He has an entertaining tendency to suddenly blurt out so-crazy-that-they-just-might-work ideas like abolishing the armed forces in their entirety. The fact that they are so-crazy-they-definitely-won’t-work is neither here nor there, but just knowing that he can just pull these little gems from nowhere is entirely great (see Fig. 1)
Fig. 1
Sadly, Jenkins didn’t call for Wales to be nuked off the face of the planet last night but he did put on a formidable display of wilful contrariness. Ban smoking in cars? Pah! How about I smoke you and then run you over in my car! Intervene in Syria? Get the hell outta here, yer bum! Build more wind farms? From my cold, dead hands I CAN KILL MY KIDS IF I WANT TO!
And that’s just fine in my book as although I usually disagree with Jenkins, I just really like the fact that he can’t even be bothered to pretend he cares what anyone else thinks. It’s pigheadedness, but in the best possible way.
The same, however, cannot be said for Will Hutton, a man who always has some very important news to deliver and cares desperately that we should care desperately about whatever that news is. As is usually the case, these dire warnings pertained to the economy and as is also usual, I think he’s right: I think we are completely stuffed if we carry on doing what we’re doing. But here’s the thing that separates Hutton from Jenkins: While I’m usually onboard with what he’s saying, I just can never seem to fully get behind him. It might be because he is so consumed (to the point where he jumps up and down in his seat) by these visions of despair that he does appear a little mad, it might be because he always looks like he’s wearing lip liner but there’s always just something in the way of me hitching my wagon to the Hutton train. Jenkins? He can come up with any old crap and I’ll happily lap it up but Hutton? I don’t know. Maybe next time he’s on he should just say “You know what guys? Everything’s going to be just fine.” and see where that gets him, but yes, I do find the cognitive dissonance that he leaves me experiencing to be quite perplexing.
Right, I was going to do the audience now but I’ve realised I’ve forgotten that Plaid’s Elin Jones was also on the panel last night. Truth be told, this is probably because it was quite a forgettable performance and what fragments I can remember largely revolve around her talking about Wales type things that have no bearing on my life. So yes, her appearance was of no great import and I now feel bad for constantly bitching about Elfyn Llwyd always being on the Welsh episodes. At least he has a memorable moustache.
So finally to the crowd and what a rum old bunch they were this week, cheering and booing in equal measure whilst still making the time to allow a few have-a-go heroes to get very hot under the collar (as exemplified by the gentlemen with hair made of straw who went on an entirely epic rant about Evil Monetarists). However, the most important thing that they taught me last night was this: Should I ever be invited to a fancy dress party in Aberystwyth I should not, repeat not, go dressed as a wind turbine (as I have always intended to, should the opportunity arise). Those people, they get a little crazy about the things. Almost as if they were… tilting… at windmills.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I’LL BE HERE ALL WEEK. ENJOY THE VEAL!
Tl;dr
Shapps: 7/10
Is a male…
Bryant: 7/10
Hit many a nail (on the head)…
Jenkins: 8/10
Blew a gale…
Hutton: 6/10
Set sail (on the Ship of Woe)…
Jones: 4/10
Pretty much failed…
The Crowd: 7/10
Are from Wales…
So there you go: A perfectly serviceable outing that whilst not blisteringly relevant was still entertaining and has put me in a buoyant mood. I’m a simple creature at heart…. All it takes to keep me happy is the spectacle of an angry rabble berating our elected representatives once a week. Granted, it’s not the most exotic vice but it’s a damn sight cheaper than crack.
Next week Lemmings, next week…
When is Craig going to be on Question Time?
Monday, November 21, 2011
THE DICTATOR’S HANDBOOK
The Dictator’s Handbook is written by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith.
According to this book:
There is no great difference between a ‘democratic’ leader like Obama and a ‘dictator’ like Hitler.
Leaders, like Obama and Hitler, do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power.
Most leaders don’t really care about ‘their country’ or ‘their people’.
A leader has a number of ‘essential supporters’, people who need to be ‘looked after’.
Some leaders, like Obama, have a large number of ‘esential supporters’ who need to be ‘looked after’.
Some ‘dictators’ have a relatively small number of ‘essential supporters’.
Obama’s supporters form a fairly large ‘coalition’.
The small coalition supporting Iran’s supreme leader, Khamenei, includes certain Revolutionary Guards, certain government officials, certain religious leaders, certain thugs and certain businessmen.
A leader needs to reward the key people in the military, the judiciary, and the ‘inner circle’.
An American or European ‘democratic’ leader has to give out rewards to the followers – contracts, subsidies, and welfare payments.
Rockefeller at Bilderberg, making the big decisions in secret.
What The Dictator’s Handbook does not make clear is that ‘dictators’ are often put into power by the so called ‘democracies’.
Richard Sale, UPI Intelligence Correspondent, has written about how Saddam Hussein was trained and put into power by the CIA. (Saddam worked for the CIA)
Apparently the USA and UK put the Ayatollahs into power. (The Ayatollahs and the CIA)
Reportedly, Gaddafi was put into power by the CIA and MI6 (THE LIBYA MYSTERY DEEPENS)
Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power, according to The Guardian.
Victor Rothschild. (WHO WAS HE WORKING FOR?)
Perhaps the really big question is – who controls the so-called ‘leaders’?
There is a theory that the ‘leaders’ like Obama are merely puppets. (OBAMA ADOPTED BY MK ULTRA?)
Perhaps the people who pull the strings are people like Rockefeller, Rothschild, Kissinger, Manning…
Manning? Pulling the strings from his jail cell?
Anders ‘Chris Bryant hits the nail on the head’. He missed this one.
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064281/Agent-Labour-MP-Chris-Bryant-jailed-collecting-12-000-pictures-child-pornography-police-seen.html
.
‘The divorced father of two helped shadow justice minister Mr Bryant to a resounding victory in Rhondda during last year’s election. He had worked as a Labour councillor in Tonypandy in Rhondda and also sat on the board at another school, the court heard.’
.
Expenses claims scandal
Chris Bryant claimed over £92,000 in expenses over the five years leading up to the 2009 scandal over MPs’ expenses. During that time he flipped his second-home expenses twice, claimed mortgage interest expenses that started at £7,800 per year before rising (after flipping) to £12,000 per year. He also claimed £6,400 in stamp duty and other fees on his most recent purchase, and £6,000 per year in service charges. A claim that he made for £58,493.26, almost three times the annual maximum, in 2004, was disallowed. Wikipedia
.
Also a ardent Labour Friend of Israel.
.
Craig on QT? Never. And who wastes their time watching it anyway?
Still picking up the odd quid. How many of his Rhondda constituents can get work at £290 an hour? Same rate from the Guardian. Greedy individual.
.
Payment of £5,833.34 from The Independent, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT. Hours: 20 hrs. (Registered 26 October 2011)
.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/chris_bryant/rhondda#register
.
Shapps picked up a donation from the National Housebuilders’ Council. See his Register of Interests on They Work For You.
.
These two are just like many others in Pugin’s Palace. eg Mark Simmonds taking money from Circle Health now running Hinchingbroke Hospital courtesy of Lansley/LibDems.
What I omitted was that a declaration of a conflict of interest is never made when MPs are speaking unlike Joe Bloggs the builder who is also a parish councillor when the council in discussing a matter in which he has a financial or other interest.
Mary – I want to have your babies~!
Manning? Pulling the strings from his jail cell?
========
LET’S GET REAL, FOR A CERTAIN TYPE oops caps lock off “gaol” holds no boundaries.
What I omitted was that a declaration of a conflict of interest is never made when MPs are speaking unlike Joe Bloggs the builder who is also a parish councillor when the council in discussing a matter in which he has a financial or other interest.
=================
Jahbulon.
Still picking up the odd quid. How many of his Rhondda constituents can get work at £290 an hour? Same rate from the Guardian. Greedy individual.
.
Payment of £5,833.34 from The Independent, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT. Hours: 20 hrs. (Registered 26 October 2011)
.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/chris_bryant/rhondda#register
.
Shapps picked up a donation from the National Housebuilders’ Council. See his Register of Interests on They Work For You.
.
These two are just like many others in Pugin’s Palace. eg Mark Simmonds taking money from Circle Health now running Hinchingbroke Hospital courtesy of Lansley/LibDems.
============
Antonia Miranda Bliar Esq + Very Large Brood – give or take 100m, easy…
How rich is Tony Blair?
By This Is Money
Last updated at 1:15 PM on 6th September 2010
Comments (0)
Share
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s socialist ideals have not prevented him from becoming a multi-millionaire since he left office. We track the rise of his earning potential…
Tony Blair: Making serious money
‘I am a socialist […because] it stands for equality’. So said the Rt Hon Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his maiden speech in the House of Commons on July 6 1983. However, as Tony Blair is now a millionaire several times over, it would appear that some people are more equal than others.
Blair graduated in jurisprudence from St John’s College, Oxford and later qualified as a barrister.
He was elected as the Labour MP for Sedgefield in 1983 (current parliamentary salary: £65,737), and enjoyed a rapid ascent, with his first front bench appointment coming a year later. He was appointed Labour leader in 1994, following the sudden death of John Smith.
At the age of 43 years old Blair became the youngest Prime Minister (current salary: £197,689) since 1812, following a landslide victory in the 1997 General Election. Victories in the 2001 and 2005 elections meant that when Blair resigned the premiership in 2007 he was the Labour Party’s longest-serving prime minister and the only person to lead the party to three consecutive General Election victories.
However, it is Blair’s post-PM activities that have made him a serious financial heavyweight, and it has been estimated that he has earned at least £15m since leaving Number 10.
He is a senior advisor at investment bank JP Morgan (salary estimates range between £500,000 and £2.5m) and advises the Swiss insurance firm Zurich Financial Services on climate change issues for a reputed £1m a year, not to mention his consulting role with luxury goods firm LVMH. And he was said to have been paid an estimated £1m for writing a report for the government of Kuwait on the future of the oil-rich state.
Indeed, such is the demand for his advisory services that he has set up a commercial consultancy firm, Tony Blair Associates, which has banked at least £2m advising foreign countries and businesses.
Although still dogged by certain decisions made when PM, such as his unpopular wars, Blair is cashing in on his popularity and has received an estimated £5m for his memoirs, although he has vowed to give the money to charity with the Royal British Legion the beneficiary.
The royalties from sales – autobiographies by former PMs Margaret Thatcher and John Major sold around 500,000 and 200,000 copies respectively – are likely to earn millions more for the charity.
And for those that couldn’t wait for the memoirs to be published, Blair has been active on the after-dinner speech circuit. Signed to the Washington Speakers Bureau for £500,000, Blair typically commands up to $250,000 for a 90-minute speech.
He is widely believed to be the highest paid speaker – commanding even more than former US President Bill Clinton – and has reportedly earned over £5m for his speaking engagements. Last year he earned almost £400,000 for two half-hour speeches in the Philippines.
On top of this, Blair receives £84,000 of taxpayers’ money to run a private office, and he is also entitled to draw a pension of £63,468.
Most recently, the former PM named as the 2010 recipient of the annual Liberty Award in the US – including a £67,000 cash prize.
Blair’s vast property portfolio
Finally, Blair, who is married to Cherie Booth QC, the barrister daughter of actor Tony Booth, also boasts an enviable property portfolio.
Most recently, the Blairs paid £1m for a house for a three-bedroom maisonette in a Georgian townhouse in central London for their daughter. It becomes the eighth home in the Blairs’ seemingly ever-expanding portfolio.
It was bought mortgage-free in the names of Mrs Blair and her 22-year-old daughter Kathryn, Land Registry documents revealed in August 2010. Their three eldest children now each have a £1m home in central London, all bought with substantial help from their parents.
Kathryn and her older brothers Euan, 26, and Nicky, 24, all live within striking distance of their parents’ £3.7m mansion in Connaught Square.
The Blairs have amassed property worth £15m since Mr Blair entered Downing Street in 1997. Mrs Blair is understood to have paid for the two-storey property for Miss Blair, who until recently studied European law in Strasbourg, where she had a scholarship. She previously studied at the Sorbonne in Paris. It follows the purchase of a £1.3m Grade II-listed townhouse for Euan and a £1.13m ‘lad’s pad’ for Nicky.
Since leaving Downing Street in 2007, Mr Blair is estimated to have made £25m from lectures and lucrative consultancy deals. Claims that he has earned up to £60m have been dismissed by his office as ‘simply ludicrous’.
The true figure for Mr Blair’s wealth is impossible to pin down. He has set up a complicated web of companies through which he channels his earnings without having to declare them publicly.
Anders, having more babies is exactly the problem and dilemma this issue is trying to deal with.
Usury means lower quality, when the take of the money lender was low, society was improving and advancing considerably.
Pound’s Canto XLV (With Usura) is a particularly lucid exposition of how the usury system infects social and cultural bodies. He provides a note at the end defining usury: as “a charge for the use of purchasing power, levied without regard to production: often even without regard to the possibilities of production”. That is to say, what we commonly know as interest rates charged on loans for credit which the banks create largely out of nothing, i.e. as a book-keeping entry, for which we all, individuals, businesses and governments must pay back in real money as a token of our work.
You just couldn’t make this shit up! A Tory led government is suggesting using government guarantees to allow people with no money to buy over-priced houses that they can’t really afford. Proof if any were needed that there is no difference between the parties – they are all in the pockets of big business and out to make a quick buck.
You are right the property market has not been allowed to correct. But in truth the market has been manipulated by many governments, because they knew if property prices rise people spend more money and are willing to take on additional debt. What we had and to a certain degree still have, is a consumption fueled ponzi scheme based on inflated real estate.
“GEORGE W BUSH AND ANTHONY L BLAIR LIVE STREAMING OF WAR CRIMES TRIAL”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27765
“These are some of my policy prescriptions..”
This could be a much-needed step to a properly thought out political programme. You also need to work out the underlying principles and ideology (whether “liberty, egalite, fraternite in a balance that is democratically set”, or whatever you and your comrades are agreed that it should be) so that you have a complete and coherent political programme. Then you can stand for MP again, with a party whose name is thought out to reflect its actual beliefs without being too long, and which may have a better chance of convincing the voters this time. Good luck.
“These are some of my policy prescriptions..”
This could be a much-needed step to a properly thought out political programme. You also need to work out the underlying principles and ideology (whether “liberte, egalite, fraternite in a balance that is democratically set”, or whatever you and your comrades are agreed that it should be) so that you have a complete and coherent political programme. Then you can stand for MP again, with a party whose name is thought out to reflect its actual beliefs without being too long, and which may have a better chance of convincing the voters this time. Good luck.
I suggest the “Fuck The Party System” Party.
.
If MP’s are chosen on the basis that their incoherent ragbag of prejudices and opinions can be forced vaguely to match the manifesto which one side or another has written with the exclusive aim of seducing swing voters, and if they are mendacious enough to drop any of their “convictions” at the behest of the party whip, there is no justification for claiming that the process is democratic.
Join the “Fuck The Party System” Party. It’s not a party, and it’s not a system. It’s just what we need.
I agree with Craig that the answer is certainly not to allow or encourage individual credit and continue the false inflation of property.
This current housing F*up started with Thatcher selling council housing and abolishing the fair rent scheme. So there is now enormous pressure on what affordable housing is left and increasing rents whilst next to no new building to replace it. Clegg needs to reinstate the fair rent agreement and put a cap on what landlords can charge in rents -(currently our taxes are going to the fat cats with rental properties who are charging the unemployed huge and unfair rents for their property) I don’t understand the logic of caping the housing benefit rather than the rent itself??? Oh yes most of the cabinet propably have investment property- silly me. Cap rents and that will halt the mass investment property buying, which is one of the causes of unrealistic house prices and simply allows the rich to rip off the poor yet again at our expense.
I do not agree with halving mortgages – that would help people with portfolios of peoperty the most would it not ? I do not see a coherent argument for cutting people’s mortgaes or what it would actually achieve.