advertisement


The Premiership of Mary Elizabeth Truss.Sept 2022 - Oct 2022

IMHO it would be a better 'double act' if they swapped jobs. Stare-more always looks like he is frightened he might say something that upsets someone. Fine as a lawyer, but not ideal in a politician facing up to a need for serious changes in policies and government actions/decisons that people need to understand.

One thing I like about the deputy is that she makes clear where she comes from and why she really cares. Stare-more tends to make it seem like point-scoring whilst carefully dodging anything you might dislike.

I'm guessing Labour HQ thinks the electorate prefer the current set-up. Starmer is not a natural politician but that can be a plus, and it doesn't prevent him and his team from tackling the major issues e.g. climate. Obviously some - mainly the left - will want him to do more.
 
Merely pointing out that when someone perceives somebody as ‘rich’, they often have absolutely no idea of the reality underneath the surface.
Everyone needs a house, but nobody needs a £1m house. Someone with a £800,000 mortgage on a £1m house made a conscious choice to buy a big, expensive house (or a small expensive house in a place with a very good quality of life) rather than a more modest house at a far more comfortable loan-to-value ratio.
The person on £30k is also far, far less secure than the one earning £150k, because their £200k property "wealth" represents the entirety of their housing assets, whereas the higher-income buyer could release that 200k of equity and down-size without incurring additional expense (probably a saving).

Frankly, though, the example is bogus: anyone buying a property in that price-range at that kind of loan-to-value is asking for trouble, and has let status envy cloud their common sense. I'm not saying people shouldn't live in £1m houses, just that anyone I ever knew who did certainly did not have an 80% mortgage hanging off their home. Like all luxuries, if you can't pay cash for it, you cannot afford it.
 
I'm guessing Labour HQ thinks the electorate prefer the current set-up. Starmer is not a natural politician but that can be a plus, and it doesn't prevent him and his team from tackling the major issues e.g. climate. Obviously some - mainly the left - will want him to do more.
I've no vote in this game, but I think the current setup works well. Starmer has the gravitas and trustworthiness you'd want in a leader who, as UK PM, is going to spend time on a world stage, while Rayner has the plain-speaking bluntness you need to get a handle on fixing the many national problems they will inherit. I don't think she could be as forthright if she had to play the part of PM-in-waiting. And really, neither of them come across as "politicians", so it's a plus both ways.

And the Left are idealists (you can't really be left-wing without wishing for a better world), but that means it's nearly impossible to do enough for all of them...
 
Everyone needs a house, but nobody needs a £1m house. Someone with a £800,000 mortgage on a £1m house made a conscious choice to buy a big, expensive house (or a small expensive house in a place with a very good quality of life) rather than a more modest house at a far more comfortable loan-to-value ratio.
The person on £30k is also far, far less secure than the one earning £150k, because their £200k property "wealth" represents the entirety of their housing assets, whereas the higher-income buyer could release that 200k of equity and down-size without incurring additional expense (probably a saving).

Frankly, though, the example is bogus: anyone buying a property in that price-range at that kind of loan-to-value is asking for trouble, and has let status envy cloud their common sense. I'm not saying people shouldn't live in £1m houses, just that anyone I ever knew who did certainly did not have an 80% mortgage hanging off their home. Like all luxuries, if you can't pay cash for it, you cannot afford it.
Well said. Can't stand the idea that people earning £150k aren't actually wealthy because of their outgoings: buy a smaller house, take the kids out of private school, you've got options.
 
Everyone needs a house, but nobody needs a £1m house. Someone with a £800,000 mortgage on a £1m house made a conscious choice to buy a big, expensive house (or a small expensive house in a place with a very good quality of life) rather than a more modest house at a far more comfortable loan-to-value ratio.
The person on £30k is also far, far less secure than the one earning £150k, because their £200k property "wealth" represents the entirety of their housing assets, whereas the higher-income buyer could release that 200k of equity and down-size without incurring additional expense (probably a saving).

Frankly, though, the example is bogus: anyone buying a property in that price-range at that kind of loan-to-value is asking for trouble, and has let status envy cloud their common sense. I'm not saying people shouldn't live in £1m houses, just that anyone I ever knew who did certainly did not have an 80% mortgage hanging off their home. Like all luxuries, if you can't pay cash for it, you cannot afford it.

You’d be surprised how many folks have eye watering mortgages, we’ve been programmed that property prices only go one way so best leverage to the max, especially whilst money is ‘cheap’. This is of course wrong, people should do the exact opposite and pay off debt whilst it’s cheap but it was going to be cheap forever, right? I know plenty with 7 figure mortgages. The reason I used the word ‘current’ is because if prices tumble 30%, the £150K guy is £100K underwater. If his job goes and he can’t find another, he’s in trouble. The £30K guy has ‘lost’ £60K on paper but that’s likely to be irrelevant, he still has a home that can’t be repo’d.
 
Everyone needs a house, but nobody needs a £1m house. Someone with a £800,000 mortgage on a £1m house made a conscious choice to buy a big, expensive house (or a small expensive house in a place with a very good quality of life) rather than a more modest house at a far more comfortable loan-to-value ratio.

Sometimes it's location and proximity to work, rather than something big or luxurious. I work in That London and I couldn't afford a f**king shoe-box inside the M25, so I commute and it's not something I would recommend to anyone.
 
You’d be surprised how many folks have eye watering mortgages, we’ve been programmed that property prices only go one way so best leverage to the max, especially whilst money is ‘cheap’. This is of course wrong, people should do the exact opposite and pay off debt whilst it’s cheap but it was going to be cheap forever, right? I know plenty with 7 figure mortgages. The reason I used the word ‘current’ is because if prices tumble 30%, the £150K guy is £100K underwater. If his job goes and he can’t find another, he’s in trouble. The £30K guy has ‘lost’ £60K on paper but that’s likely to be irrelevant, he still has a home that can’t be repo’d.
Those seven-figure mortgages that your acquaintances have were choices. They were poor choices, but nobody put a gun to their heads and told them that they had to buy such a big house.

And the £30k guy really does not have £200,000 at all. He has a house, which he is using as a way to keep him from dying of hypothermia in a shop doorway. If he were to sell that house, he'd have a bit less than £200,000 (fees, etc) and nowhere to live. The price of your home is irrelevant as an asset unless it happens to be in excess of the normal price of houses. Only people with higher-than-normal priced houses can gain by selling, because only they can go and live in a cheaper house, and pocket the difference in cash.

@Seeker_UK - I understand that, and in London particularly there's so little new housing, and such a good return from private rental that it's almost impossible to buy used houses without grossly overpaying. I have family living (renting) inside M25. They gave up on the idea of ever owning a house near to where they live now, and will just keep renting, and retire abroad.
 
So, that's the Tories, then. Let's hope the Great British Public boots them out, and keeps them out of office for a long time.

Didn’t hear folks complaining when their mortgages fell to loose change a month. Very few were saying rates should be raised and they should be paying more.
 
Those seven-figure mortgages that your acquaintances have were choices. They were poor choices, but nobody put a gun to their heads and told them that they had to buy such a big house.

And the £30k guy really does not have £200,000 at all. He has a house, which he is using as a way to keep him from dying of hypothermia in a shop doorway. If he were to sell that house, he'd have a bit less than £200,000 (fees, etc) and nowhere to live. The price of your home is irrelevant as an asset unless it happens to be in excess of the normal price of houses. Only people with higher-than-normal priced houses can gain by selling, because only they can go and live in a cheaper house, and pocket the difference in cash.

@Seeker_UK - I understand that, and in London particularly there's so little new housing, and such a good return from private rental that it's almost impossible to buy used houses without grossly overpaying. I have family living (renting) inside M25. They gave up on the idea of ever owning a house near to where they live now, and will just keep renting, and retire abroad.

Absolutely. Life is a series of choices. The seven figure mortgages may be a poor choice or an exceptionally good one, all depends on individual circumstances. You make your bed and lie in it, consequences and all.

BTW, rental yields in London / SE are about the lowest anywhere in the UK. It’s simply a bloody expensive place to live full stop.
 
You’d be surprised how many folks have eye watering mortgages, we’ve been programmed that property prices only go one way so best leverage to the max, especially whilst money is ‘cheap’. This is of course wrong, people should do the exact opposite and pay off debt whilst it’s cheap but it was going to be cheap forever, right? I know plenty with 7 figure mortgages. The reason I used the word ‘current’ is because if prices tumble 30%, the £150K guy is £100K underwater. If his job goes and he can’t find another, he’s in trouble. The £30K guy has ‘lost’ £60K on paper but that’s likely to be irrelevant, he still has a home that can’t be repo’d.

As mentioned by @KrisW above your suggestions are bogus. Whether on 30 or 150K if you extend too much it all comes crashing down. You ignore the low salary issue and try and paint a false equivalence to justify the continuance of the inequity. All well off Tories do this. Top 1-5% have too much of the pie and often give very little back to the system they benefit from. No Tory has a plan to tackle that or is interested in it. The ones in the 5-20% bracket are all looking enviously at the 1-5% above and chasing the dream. This just perpetuates the misery for the many.
 
Can someone please explain to me why Kwartang doesn’t explain now, or indeed last week, how he intends to reduce Debt:GDP? I mean, he must have the plan!

There seems to be a game of brinkmanship going on, and I can’t understand why.
 


advertisement


Back
Top