saintfully

1) I don't think anyone with a brain is advocating building houses and lending them to the poor - of those without a brain, Mr Osbourne is suggesting that any house (new-build or otherwise) can be bought via state-backed private lending, whereby the only body not liable for more than 5% of the houses value are the banks, despite them holding ultimate ownership! I find this remarkable - especially since the proposal is that the state ends up on the hook for £130 billion! The plan that has been suggested is that the state builds homes and then leases them to the poor but retains ownership (and liability). The principal reasons why this has been proposed is that a) the private sector has been shown to be woefully incapable of building enough private housing (despite the undoubted demand = market failure) because they are sitting on massively over-valued landbanks, b) because, in general, its better to have people not living in over-priced sh.it holes run by slum-landlords, and c) it allows for an immediate stimulus for the economy. 2) Prejudice is, as the word suggests, about pre-existing opinion, and not about opinion based on current evidence. I suggest it is foolish to listen to your prejudice as opposed to looking at the evidence. Thus, if I see a moronic comment/proposal based on prejudice rather than fact/opinion, I'm happy to call it out. 3) American mortgage rates can only be negotiated downwards? Interesting, I didn't know that - it makes the decisions of the banks, in that new context, seem even more pernicious to me!

What exactly was the serious point you wanted to debate? Whether poor people should be housed? (Yes). Whether it should be down to loan-sharks to do it? (No). Whether there is a role for the state to house people when the free-market fails? (Yes). Or was it whether the free-market economic model based on consumer credit was a good one...? Up until yesterday I thought that last question had been answered and everyone knew it had been a 30 year experiment that failed. Now it seems that isn't the case and actually financial deregulation and free-flowing consumer credit was/is the answer to the UK's economic woes. Who knew??

Got a reference for that journal article? I'd love to read it!

A sad day for her family and supporters everywhere. I am consoling myself with the knowledge that The Conservative Party will never win a majority in this country again.

Positively. Less cash = less clothes = more t.its. Bring-it.

Yeah, he was as wrong as George Bush was for expanding the programme, as wrong as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for allowing UK banks implicitly to support it, as wrong as the Tory opposition for supporting/not calling Labour out on it until too late, as wrong as the punters who took out loans beyond their means and as wrong as the bankers themselves who dreamt up the model in the first place. Etc. Etc. If you can't see that blame has to be shared around, then you're probably the kind of idiot who thinks that running a small business makes you uber-qualified to comment on international economics. As for the comment regarding it all being legal and not a crime.. so was taking a shed load of meow-meow until ~1 year ago but we didn't encourage that, nor having kids for the purposes of child benefit, nor lots of other things that the blunt instrument of the law is incapable of/slow to tackle. Crimes can be moral as well as legal ... IMHO of course.

Is the best way to stimulate the economy is to have an inheritance tax rate of ~90%? Forces folks to generate wealth for themselves and not rely on inheritance/the work of the forebears.

Yep, those bankers have nothing to answer for at all... Its absolutely not the fault of the people who committed the crimes, just the fault of the people who failed to stop them!

Great honest post! I agree entirely that the whole system is corrupt - I suspect many do. One of the most positive things about our current era is that (for a few years) we have the freedom and ability to see the full extent of moral failure and corruption via the web. I also agree that mankind doesn't appear to want to act. The question is whether you therefore conclude that the only thing to do is look after number one? I disagree with you on that, because although I accept that dissent and a progressive stance is futile (and often self-defeating), I wouldn't be able to look myself in the eye on my deathbed if I didn't know that I'd tried to be more than just a consumer. Probably pointless though...

Deluded? I prefer glass-half-full. The point is, don't our chances depend on who we bring in, not how many (14-17????) and not who we let go. I think you've lost the plot Bazzer - time to admit you just plucked a number out of thin air for effect and move on. Its hardly the crime of the century.

I don't think we'll ship out all those players you've listed (a total of 14) unless we have better players to bring in. I do think we could be capable of hitting the top 7 if some of those players remain, but we replace others with higher quality. My question to you is - if bring in only 13 new players, which of the remaining squad do you pinpoint as the weak link that makes 7th place unobtainable? Or were you just spouting boll.ox whilst you fumbled your way around 'The Big Book of Grammar for Kidzzzzzz'?

Thats tricky, I was thinking we only needed 11-13 (or some other made-up random number plucked out of the air to prove what a di.ckish point I'm making).

Epic win. Two under-strength teams battling it out and Saints emerge victorious! Are we safe yet?

Hehe, a link would have sufficed, surely? Anyway, 101. He's a family/wife-cheating scumbag with stoopid hair !

Again, the logic of the simpleton. You can cut borrowing if you borrow to buy something that ends up being worth more than you borrowed when you sell it. If you can't understand that then you are an imbecile.

'Frankly', I'm embaressed for you. Firstly, 'Yes' and 'very solvent, thank you'. I took the decision to invest in my future income by going to University and doing a technical degree. That's enabled me to earn much more money than I would have done without it. Hope that wasn't too complicated to follow. On to your other genius points: i) We can never be screwed like Greece and Cyprus because we can print our own money and devalue our currency if necessary (oh, and it was Labour who kept us out of the EU). In fact, it is this govts policy - just restated in the budget - to continue with a devaluation of the pound via QE and high inflation, just like over the last three years. BUT anyway, even Labour aren't advocating that we just borrow, borrow and borrow again - rather, just enough to stimulate the economy and inject some demand. Erm, a bit like Georges new wheeze whereby the govt commit £130 billion of your money to back private mortgages - which is a stimulus, but a crap one. ii) (Bored now). Balls past record. Erm, look at Osbornes. Hate to say it, but they're all crap - I'm only interested in the policy that is most likely to prevent UK from languishing like Japan for the next 10 years. IMHO, thats slightly more likely to be Labour strategy. iii). If you increase size of GDP by growth of private sector, % of govt spend decreases. The trick is to rebalance economy without destroying it - eg. by reflating housing bubble. I don't think you know what you're talking about. R U pis.sed at sunday lunchtime???

Hahahahahahahahahaha - explain to me exactly how much the national debt will be in 2015? (double 2010) How much the deficit will have been reduced by? (only ~20%) Why its reduction has stalled now? (no growth). 'You don't need a masters degree in economics to know that'... cutting during the downward part of the economic cycle stunts recovery and growth. Since you insist on reducing international economics to that of a household... lets think about this: who is going to pay off their £10,000 debt quicker? The house that scrimps and saves an extra £100 a month, or the house that invests £1000 to boost their income by £3000?

Nope, look again. There are two schemes, one that applies to new builds (an extension of the current failure that will achieve very little on its own without housebuilders being prepared to build on overpriced plots). The other is new and is designed to bridge the gap between 80-95% deposits. Any house buyer (including second-timers) can borrow the 15% difference as an interest free loan of George (ie. us) on gaffs up to £600,000(I think). As it happens, this will help me a lot next year - but its a fu.ckin' risky game for the govt... afterall, house prices never drop by 20% do they.....

Depressing to see that Georges big idea is to reinflate the housing bubble. Borrowing £130 billion off the books (by the way, the deficit is £120 billion) to offer as loans for deposits for house buyers. Or, to put it another way, tax-payers will be carrying the risk of £130 billions worth of mortgages to people who can't save for a deposit!! Doh!! How did we get into this mess again???

Boruc - new hero. Unrestrained gurning expressions whilst Suarez pis.sed him about before his yellow. Special mentions to Clyne, Shaw and Jose for coming on and meeting the challenge. Lallana MOTM because he sometimes takes the pis.s too - albeit with his feet. Wish he could shoot though. Remember when he got his first goals in the championship, long before we got relegated? He could shoot then!

I never knew Bearsy, but I have known true love - and a little part of that has just died. Sad-face etc etc.

For once I agree. It was a red - look how high his boot was. Intent is not required. (Also, hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha @ ManU)

Meh, you don't get it though do you.

I'm all for sacking the incompetent Mr Osbourne... ...but, on a different yet related point (and sorry Dr Kucho, you are just the latest in a long line of offenders), can we all, for once, accept that the UK is not analogous to either a large multinational business or to a household with a budget. Such comparisons drive me fu.cking insane and, although comforting, are completely useless. Thank you - rant over.

I think you have missed the fundamental point that the dumbing down was entirely intentional and ironic. Note the deliberate anglophile mis-spelling of Mustapha Million. The authors were clearly inviting the audience to position themselves as 'dumb outsider kids', whilst knowingly sneering at NF bigots who probably thought Alf Garnett was a hero. Ahead of its time IMHO. (Ahhh, growing up in the 70's - smiles fondly)