This is true, its pure supply and demand theory in practice.

There is one thing that puzzles, nay annoys me more than anything and if I were Prime Minister would be the first issue to be addressed - that of the lenders attitude to long term investments, such as house mortgages.

It probably wasn't always the case when only mutual societies would lend against properties but it seems during the Thatcher recessions and to a lesser extent this one, that mortgage providers are quite happy to shelve any pretense that lending against property is a very long term investment (25 to 30 years) and immediately put pressure on the borrower to repay or get out of the property as soon as they experience problems not of their making, redundancy for instance.

Most mortgagees WANT to work and they actively WANT to continue paying their mortgage in order to chase the dream of asset ownership, we've been told for a couple of generations now that its the way to go, and any lender who lends against a property value should have the nounce to understand the market and to have knowledge of the value of THEIR asset whether or not they own 95% or just 10% of it - so why can't they support their borrowers through periods of recession in what is normally just a few years out of a repayment period of many ?

To speak up for Nationwide here I was very pleased with their reaction a few years ago when my wife was out of work and I rang to see if there was any way that we could reduce our mortgage repayments even for a short while, they simply extended the term thus dropping the monthly repayment - now I aren't stupid enough to think that they aren't screwing at least five more years worth of interest out of me but now that the good times are returning (chortle) its up to me to overpay now and reduce that term again - sensible win/win solution from a lender who is still based on the mutual blueprint of lending for housing - if I happened to be a 25 year old struggling it may have been different but really need not be as the 25 year old should have at least 40 more employment years left in which to extend a repayment loan against the value of a property ?

Such a shame that amongst all the good news on the economy this week, falling inflation, falling unemployment you chose to take a snippet of a speech from David Cameron and try to twist it into a negative to pursue your anti capitalist agenda - as evidenced by the final sentence in your rant.

But to address your 'point'. Prudent people will save for retirement and make pension provisions as soon as they can - despite what interest rates are doing.

Indeed. Boom and bust is part of a normal economic cycle and there will no doubt be a bust again.

Hence why it was a ridiculous statement and one which was always going to come back and bite him when Brown claimed 'no more boom and bust'.

What needs to happen is that a country needs to be in the best position possible when the bust happens. Labour gave us a great example of how not to do this pre-2008 by building up deficits in boom years and overspending. This is why the Tories are more trusted on the economy and probably will be for the foreseeable.

I have an "anti capitalist agenda" [sic, do I?

Evidence, please.

And not just evidence of where I think that the current way that capitalism is going is wrong/geared against the majority etc.

I suggest you find places where I've declared myself, for instance, a 'socialist' (I'll give you a clue – I haven't) and where I've called for revolution etc etc.

And for goodness sake – time and again you've had your backside handed to you over your fawning, desperate attempts to claim that there is a meaningful recovery.



People's ability to do that will be hampered by the rising cost of living and 30 years of declining wages.

When you're grown up you may come to understand this.

Oh yes, we all agree, including this fekkwit ... [urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm[/url

PS - thats probably one of the speeches that they have wiped from their archives, fortunately the internet is a big place and they haven't yet come to realise that not just the one copy is ever kept of anything.

There is nothing wrong with helping hard-working families get onto the property ladder and housebuilding is a natural consequence of help to buy.

All this 'minuscule' recovery is just typical Left wing logic.

Argument 1 - 'there won't be a recovery' - proved wrong
Argument 2 - 'there is the wrong type of recovery'

- seriously?!

Argument 3 - 'there is a cost of living crisis'. This argument actually has the most traction hence why Milliband runs with it. Let's face it, to argue the first two is getting embarrassing now.

Fortunately however the cost of living will improve with the improving economy.

Not anytime soon.

No matter how much certain politicians like to think that they hold some sort of control of energy suppliers the fact still remains that they have no say at all in what they can charge end users, indeed the opposite is true as we have seen with EDF this week, they are holding the UK government to ransom in order to get the green levy scrapped and improve their bottom line - and there is NOTHING that any government can do about it.

So expect to see energy prices rising far in excess of inflation for a long time yet and with news also this week that many local authorities will be increasing their council taxes next year, again in defiance of the government (and a lot of them being Tory councils) it doesn't take a genius to work out that a family's utility bills (probably their second largest expenditure each month) look set to keep the cost of living artificially high at a time of still high employment and no pressure to pay half decent wage rises (usually no rises at all).

Has Ajw71 answered my challenge to provide evidence of what he claims about me yet?

No?

Has he answered any sodding question - EVER?

Look at the stats and then please explain in what way Thatcher's and Major's governments did that.
Or any UK government ... ever.


Look at the stats and then please tell us the point at which Labour's deficit started to grow, was it in the "boom" years?
(TIP : Look at the time when the economy started to shrink as a result of the banking crisis and tax revenues dipped sharply, thereby raising the budget deficit).


You just swallow it whole don't you?

Oh and, just to reinforce the invincible credibility of your astonishingly erudite analysis, tell us the difference between a budget deficit, a structural deficit and debt and the effects of each in what circumstances.
Then go and eat cake.

WHICH ECONOMY????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!