:tories: Tories in trouble?

BTripz · 13 November 2015 12:14

Originally posted by @pap

Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint

I haven’t seen anywhere that Bucks is actually defending the banks, but what he is saying (and correct me if I’m wrong here Bucks), is that peoples personal financial profligation contributed to the banking situation, and resulted in a worse situation than if the banks had just fallen over by themselves.

If that’s his and your point, it’s a load of shit. Let me tell you why. It’s all predicated on the notion that anyone borrowing money is doing it for frivolous reasons, such as a new fucking yacht or something.

The biggest loan anyone will take out is for property, a home being a basic human right. The pair of you are attempting to paint a picture of feckless fuckers perpetually living beyond their means because they want an undeserved good life, largely by defending the interests of those who are actually fucking feckless, who spend most of their time making money from the people you’re blaming.

But Paps a lot of that did happen, especially in the Square Mile, people were believing they were entitled to something beyond what they could afford and starting “self certifying”

Self-cert loans, where borrowers simply declared their income but did not have to prove or “certify” it, were popular with self-employed workers, entrepreneurs and those with irregular earnings such as contract workers, professional sports people and entertainers.

Such loans are now banned but nearly half of all mortgages taken out between 2007 and the first quarter of 2010 were advanced on this basis.

Brokers estimate that around 5pc of all borrowers, more than 476,000 people, have a self-cert loan.

Seems to correlate with the start of the collapse. I know the sub-prime market in the states had a lot to do with it as well…

Maybe we should also be directing our ire at Estate Agents who started perpetuating house price increases, would house prices be as high as they are now if the Estate Agents didn’t artificially infalte them to get a bigger cut?

Originally posted by @pap

Blimey, if that came across as an attack, I’m almost afraid to actually attack anyone now

Onto this, you have a fairly, how can i put this nicely, abrasvie debating style and I did read your mistaken, as he didn’t actually say what you atrributed to him, reply to Bucks as an attack. Maybe a few more penis heads would lighten your posts up a bit

Generally this site is nice, the debating on the Arts thread has been insightful and fascinating, Political threads, however, tend to bring the worst out of people. Cherts is unlucky in that he has strong right wing views and is in a minority and gets ganged up on. If you were to post on a right wing forum (something I suspect you would do) I think you would find you having “your arse handed to you” quite regulalry by people who also have the strength of their convictions.

One of the main reasons why I tend to step away from politik threads is because I know I don’t know my shit but I know what I think is right and wrong.

BTripz · 13 November 2015 12:19

@Bletch what you wrote about the Financial sector and the history of the collapse is entirely redolent of the Reinsurance spiral that collapsed the Lloyds of London insurance market. Maybe the Financial sector should have learnt from history, one suspects not.

Coxford_lou · 13 November 2015 12:29

To be fair to Cherts, I don’t think he has strong right wing views. Putting political party divides aside, I’d say his take on the world usually centres around his beliefs about personal responsibility. I often don’t agree with him, but I think I’m gaining a better measure of what makes Cherts tick, and I respect the fact he’s consistent with that view (but is usually open to measured reason over time).

pap · 13 November 2015 12:34

Originally posted by @Bucks

I said it was on this thread, I did not say it was lots of people. Cherts was replying to Baz, which was the link, but I was trying not to personalise it. I did reply to your “growth isnt inherently a good thing” point. I asked if this thread had an anti-growth agenda now, remember? You also suggested that much of the growth was down to privatisation but I let that go and just posted the 10 sectors with the largest growth.

You didn’t say it was just one person either, and in doing so, attempted to imply that the findings of the thread were incorrect. I’m glad that we cleared that up.

I do remember your question. I don’t remember it being germane to anything. Remember that GDP includes everything, from privatised prisons to healthcare, and all of the inherent inefficiencies of private industry, the fix to fix a fix to fix a fix. It all fucking counts.

In answer to your question, I don’t have an anti-growth agenda, but I don’t accept it as a panacea for solving anything, especially in the abstract, unexplained and superficial way that you seem to think it is.

I acknowledged that most of what Bletch wrote was spot on. Thanks for the condescending “you’ve had it explained” but I was already familiar with it. I did reply to Bletch he liked my replies to him but you carry on slating me if you like.

Sorry mucker, but you didn’t. “Bletch again you speak the truth, but only in part” doesn’t mean “most”. You’re smart enough to have said “most” if that’s what you meant.

Baz pitched in halfway through the discussion about whether individuals had some blame for contributing to the banks’ losses. He brought these points up in relation to sub prime mortgages as some half cocked response to the debate.

Why is it half cocked? Barry is correct in that housing should be a basic universal right. He’s correct in that desperate people with poor credit histories were exploited.

Blame the poor? WTF are you on about, I am doing the opposite but you continue to demonstrate how little you know about people who default on loans and credit cards. A huge number of such defaulters are intelligent, educated people who are absolutely not historically poor. They are people who misjudge a situation, or fail to anticipate a change in their circumstances, or get too ambitious, or are greedy. Some are just bloody unlucky. Yes of course some defaulters are poor and are trying to simply make ends meet, but it is bollocks to say no one has any personal responsibility for their decisions.

Nice strawman, but no-one, apart from you, is saying that the people should have no responsibility for their own actions.

What people are saying (4th time) is that there is an entire industry dedicated to assessing financial risk. That risk was completely ignored, sold on and it was hoped it would never be a problem. It was, big style. The industry collectively made a call to offer these riskier loans, and it failed.

Of course individuals contributed to the crisis, but they had to be let in first to be able to do that. The banking industry did that writ large and it is they that should accept the lion’s share of the blame, particularly as they contributed to the price inflation in the first place.

Again, you resort to condescending crap like calling me a debt collector. As well as six months at a Bank’s debt recovery team, I

spent 15 years as an insolvency practitioner advising people on their financial issues. I have stood in court with many individuals trying to keep them out of bankruptcy. It means I have first hand knowledge, sorry you find that difficult to accept.

I have no difficulty accepting your personal experience. Indeed, I’ve already said that I believe it has coloured your opinions on the issue. I’ve got strong opinions on computer programming and systems design, just as I’m sure an insolvency practitioner has strong views on debtors.

WorzelScummage · 13 November 2015 12:35

Cheers for the defence Lou, I’m glad our previous tete a tete’s haven’t soured you (particularly) against me. You’tre definitely correct, I’m not partiularly right wing (just right of centre I would say), but yes I believe that people have much more a choice in life than others seem to, and have a responsibility for these choices.

Fatso · 13 November 2015 12:40

Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint

.

And as above, the point was Fatso is no longer stalking me, hence the shift in the cosmos. ?

I like the clothes you’re wearing today, Cherts.

WorzelScummage · 13 November 2015 12:42

Cheers, I got a good deal on the Joy Division T-shirt.

pap · 13 November 2015 12:51

Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint

Owned.

This has made my Friday. I always knew you’d be back. I didn’t expect the bonus of seeing you take on that all important “who owned who” remark off the back of someone else’s post.

Quoted for posterity.

Coxford_lou · 13 November 2015 12:53

This has made me laugh! The Pap Chertsey show is always entertaining

WorzelScummage · 13 November 2015 13:00

In what warped world can’t you say that you’ve been owned by someone else? You do come out with some odd statements sometimes.

WorzelScummage · 13 November 2015 13:02

We’re here to please Lou. debate was a bit lacking in the last week or so, and everyone seemed to be getting on, so I thought it best to shake it up a little bit!

Coxford_lou · 13 November 2015 13:13

This is a fair point. Barry does take a lot of stick. And handles it well. In fact he’s probably just above Cherts in the taking a lot of stick table:

Barry
Cherts
Pap

WorzelScummage · 13 November 2015 13:15

Is this taking over from your ‘Who I like best’ table from Saintsweb. That always made for depressing reading…

Coxford_lou · 13 November 2015 13:18

Yeah, you were always bottom of that!

WorzelScummage · 13 November 2015 13:29

Originally posted by @Coxford_lou

Yeah, you were always bottom of that!

Me or Hypo anyway. At least I’m near the top of this one, although again, I don’t think that’s a good thing…

*Exhales thoughtfully*

…Now where’s my vodka?

Coxford_lou · 13 November 2015 13:44

It was a bit mean, but to be fair it was the only way I could make sense of all these random people I didn’t know, who would give me lots of stick!

my list would probably look quite different now, but Bucks would still be top!

Bucks · 13 November 2015 13:45

Sorry mucker, but you didn’t. “Bletch again you speak the truth, but only in part” doesn’t mean “most”. You’re smart enough to have said “most” if that’s what you meant.

FFS 1) On that particular Bletch post, I said he was right only in part, because he was only in part: not all bank debt is securitised. It isnt. He liked my reply. 2). On his other post, I said " a great deal of what you say is spot on of course". He does not have an issue with my replies, to him, but you do, for some odd reason.

I have no difficulty accepting your personal experience. Indeed, I’ve already said that I believe it has coloured your opinions on the issue.

Coloured my opinions? Really? Wow.

I am going to leave it there, the others can judge for themselves and I dont have the stamina of Cherts to keep going.

WorzelScummage · 13 November 2015 13:48

Originally posted by @Bucks

Sorry mucker, but you didn’t. “Bletch again you speak the truth, but only in part” doesn’t mean “most”. You’re smart enough to have said “most” if that’s what you meant.

FFS 1) On that particular Bletch post, I said he was right only in part, because he was only in part: not all bank debt is securitised. It isnt. He liked my reply. 2). On his other post, I said " a great deal of what you say is spot on of course". He does not have an issue with my replies, to him, but you do, for some odd reason.

I have no difficulty accepting your personal experience. Indeed, I’ve already said that I believe it has coloured your opinions on the issue.

Coloured my opinions? Really? Wow.

I am going to leave it there, the others can judge for themselves and I dont have the stamina of Cherts to keep going.

I’m only just getting started, my stamina is unrivalled!!! Lou will tell you that.

Edit: Obviously I mean argument wise. We’ve had a lot of long sexism debates.

pap · 13 November 2015 14:08

Originally posted by @BTripz

But Paps a lot of that did happen, especially in the Square Mile, people were believing they were entitled to something beyond what they could afford and starting “self certifying”

Self-cert loans, where borrowers simply declared their income but did not have to prove or “certify” it, were popular with self-employed workers, entrepreneurs and those with irregular earnings such as contract workers, professional sports people and entertainers.

Such loans are now banned but nearly half of all mortgages taken out between 2007 and the first quarter of 2010 were advanced on this basis.

Brokers estimate that around 5pc of all borrowers, more than 476,000 people, have a self-cert loan.

I know all about self-certification. That’s essentially thge equivalent of being your own credit check. One has to fucking wonder why it was ever seen as an appropriate gauge of risk in the first place.

Simply. If banks aren’t willing to offer self-certification (as they aren’t now), then why were they then? You did not need a crystal ball to determine that getting someone to act as their own credit check for credit they want is a bad idea.

Seems to correlate with the start of the collapse. I know the sub-prime market in the states had a lot to do with it as well…

Maybe we should also be directing our ire at Estate Agents who started perpetuating house price increases, would house prices be as high as they are now if the Estate Agents didn’t artificially infalte them to get a bigger cut?

The problem is multilayered, and has multiple causes. Huge sell off of publicly owned property, the rise of the rentier class, and yes, estate agents will play their part.

However, they are garnish compared to the banks. An estate agent cannot put a 100K home on the market for a mil and expect to sell it. The credit has to be there to support it.

\Onto this, you have a fairly, how can i put this nicely, abrasvie debating style and I did read your mistaken, as he didn’t actually say what you atrributed to him, reply to Bucks as an attack. Maybe a few more penis heads would lighten your posts up a bit

Generally this site is nice, the debating on the Arts thread has been insightful and fascinating, Political threads, however, tend to bring the worst out of people. Cherts is unlucky in that he has strong right wing views and is in a minority and gets ganged up on. If you were to post on a right wing forum (something I suspect you would do) I think you would find you having “your arse handed to you” quite regulalry by people who also have the strength of their convictions.

One of the main reasons why I tend to step away from politik threads is because I know I don’t know my shit but I know what I think is right and wrong.

I’ve done my time being the lone voice, so I can completely appreciate Cherts’ position on this site. i think he gets treated a shitload better here than he does elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean he gets a free pass when he’s perceived to be talking pony. None of us do, least of all me.

I’ve had people gang up on me before;’ whether or not the unified voice of the mob equates to an arse-handing, I don’t know. Most of the time arses were handed back, spanked appropriately. One thing I didn’t do was blame the environment around me, I merely preferred to deconstruct what was happening.

I also appreciate the position of a trying to comment on political matters without having a great deal of political knowledge. Seriously dude, that is NOT a bar to participation.

pap · 13 November 2015 14:25

Originally posted by @Bucks

Sorry mucker, but you didn’t. “Bletch again you speak the truth, but only in part” doesn’t mean “most”. You’re smart enough to have said “most” if that’s what you meant.

FFS 1) On that particular Bletch post, I said he was right only in part, because he was only in part: not all bank debt is securitised. It isnt. He liked my reply. 2). On his other post, I said " a great deal of what you say is spot on of course". He does not have an issue with my replies, to him, but you do, for some odd reason.

I have no difficulty accepting your personal experience. Indeed, I’ve already said that I believe it has coloured your opinions on the issue.

Coloured my opinions? Really? Wow.

I am going to leave it there, the others can judge for themselves and I dont have the stamina of Cherts to keep going.

The only issue I have is the subsequent recharacterisation of those remarks to demonstrate your ability to be conciliatory, even though the thread continues to contain reminders of how it was all those borrowers that broke the system.

I also don’t see the issue in suggesting that occupational hazards are an influencing factor in the way that people think. If your professional life has consistently involved dealing with people that the credit system has spat out, then I would be amazed if you did not have strong opinions on debt and finance.

Either way, you can’t have it both ways. You say we should listen to your opinions because they come from a professional source, only to express a sense of resigned amazement later on when someone suggests that your professional experience might have informed your opinions.

*

*at bTripz request