[Closed] Are we heading for a second recession? and ....

The high house prices in the UK are a poison to this nation. The problem is Labour have made everybody feel rich because their house value has risen at stupidly high rates for a number of years. Any politician who has the balls to take action that would result in a house price crash would be very brave, but ultimately that is what this country needs.

I don't want to see anybody lose their home, but in the same sense, I don't want to see anybody slave away to buy an overpriced cr@ppy flat/starter home for a massive proportion of their wages, because they are scared that 'if they don't do it now they never will be able to afford to do it'.

If car/food/energy/bike/whatever prices rise, this is seen as a bad thing. Yet people in this country see price rises in the biggest single purchase they will over make as a positive thing. Crazy.

Bring on the house price crash I say.

Rant over 😀

Christ, is it that bad? I better go and get my 99p bike oil from Wilko's then before it all goes to rat shit.

Bloody hell, I hope nobody from Haiti reads that, they would feel seriously patronised

Not patronising at all unless you have a different definition to me (patronising is to treat condescendingly, which I wasn't at all), it's just a positive outlook on a negative thing.

And to the poster above who suggested that price crashes only affect those who borrowed more than they could afford - not at all, it affects those who borrowed 200K but whos house is now worth 100K, but who are still paying for the 200K house anyway. Regardless of whether they can afford to or not.

I'm clinging to the hope that the situation has been greatly exaggerated by the media looking for the next bandwagon....like the millenium bug, swine flu, arctic chaos....but it seems pretty serious 😥

Do any of you reckon that your job is 100% safe?

ffs has any one got a rope or a razor blade,it's like reading the daily mail

not at all, it affects those who borrowed 200K but whos house is now worth 100K, but who are still paying for the 200K house anyway. Regardless of whether they can afford to or not.

...but when they paid 200K for the house they thought it was worth paying 200K for. They still have the house, all that has changed is other people's opinion of what the house is worth.

I'm also pretty certain that for some time now (since the housing crash of the 80s) its been pretty clear that house prices can go down as well as up.

...but when they paid 200K for the house they thought it was worth paying 200K for. They still have the house, all that has changed is other people's opinion of what the house is worth.

Correct, meaning they are now stuck with that house, instead of being able to move/sell etc

Do any of you reckon that your job is 100% safe?

No job is 100% secure. But to add some sunshine to the black clouds on the thread, my company has grown by approximately 10% pa for the last few years, and the workload appears to be accelerating.

We bought our house in 2007. And we plan on living in it for the next 10-20 years. The issue seems to have been the shift in viewing houses as homes to seeing them as chiefly commodities / money making ventures.

On a recession related note - does anyone want a job? (in all seriousness - we've been looking for a decent grad level support / developer. London, IT, finance, good prospects etc). You'd have thought it'd be easy to fill a vacancy. Has been a complete nightmare...

Correct, meaning they are now stuck with that house, instead of being able to move/sell etc

or perhaps they bought into the collective madness surrounding housing prices that had more in common with pyramid schemes than sensible economics.

dave's mum said

The problem is Labour have made everybody feel rich because their house value has risen at stupidly high rates for a number of years.

This is an interesting proposition. Why do you think the price of housing is down to the Government, and if it is, how have they caused house prices to rise?

Then to qoute from earlier, they should get a better job or move somewhere smaller.

or perhaps they bought into the collective madness surrounding housing prices that had more in common with pyramid schemes than sensible economics.

Or perhaps they bought a house the size they needed at a time they needed it, rather than buying into anything, and are in a very well paid job anyway. As stated earlier "get a better paid job" is a very stupid argument, as if everyone's lounging about getting the least wages they possibly can 🙄 . Their job and why they bought a house are totally irrelevant in this discussion, the only thing that's relevant is that you want them to lose money and don't care as if it's somehow their own fault, so that you and/or others can get in on the act. I'm a first time buyer, but I sure as hell don't want others to lose out so that I can buy one, that's incredibly selfish.

Rant mode on

Capitalism is where it is at, if you think that business has any morals then you are in lala land.

Life (particularly during the recession) is based on survival of the fittest whether you like it or not. People have to sharpen their game, work smarter, harder and no be scared to innovate or change. The world is your oyster and your choices are yours.

Trade unions have wrecked industry and lunch breaks are for losers. People who only care about "rights" and "entitlements" are good value for being on the dole queues right now.

I genuinely sympathize with the decent non union supporting people who have fallen on hard times.

My family construction business has been through hell and back over the last two years, we have survived and are fitter and more dynamic than ever, all as a result of mistakes we were making during the "boom".

I am sorry to say it but am not too proud to admit that it took this recession to for us to see the error of our ways.

Going forward our business has some new blood, new enthusiasm and new ideas and the drive (having survived the recession) is greater than ever. Work is picking up.

I look forward to the future and will never forget the lessons learned during this recession.

Rant mode off

rightplacerighttime - ok maybe my comment wasn't worded to make the point I was trying to make, so I'll try and clarify

Under the current government, house prices have risen at very high rates, causing people to think they are rich, and people are defensive of this wealth and don't want to see it eroded with falling house prices.

The role of the government in allowing house prices to rise so rapidly includes (IMO of course):

- House prices not been linked to inflation measures in any way.
- Poor regulation of the banks - joe public has got a bad credit habit now which the government have largely ignored. If for example the government was to impose limits on the amount one person can borrow on a mortgage as a function of their salary (say 3.5x single income/ 2.5x joint income/ any other sensible number), then that would have put a ceiling on how high house prices can rise. Instead, people have been borrowing >5x income, >100% ltv, self cert mortgages etc, and house prices have increased accordingly.
- Poor regulation of buy to let investors which force out first time buyers and jack up the lower end of the market.

I'm sure the government have been doing very nicely indeed from the tax of very large bank profits, so in a sense have not wanted to rock the boat in any way.

The government talk a lot about affordable housing, but in reality don't look to solve the major cause of unaffordable housing.

As I said above - all in my opinion of course 😀

JoeBones - you can work as smart and hard as you like but if theres no cash in the pot for people with your skills you're a bit stuffed. What you say makes sense on a business scale, but on a personal scale I know that if I lost my job I'd have a lot of trouble finding work in my field and would likely have to resort to a "normal" job on a lot lower wage, if I could find one. There are some out there, for sure, but plenty of applicants for them (I know someone job hunting at hte moment, despite being very dynamic and highly/broadly skilled, getting knocked back for people with more experience. Catch 22.

Trade unions have wrecked industry and lunch breaks are for losers. People who only care about "rights" and "entitlements" are good value for being on the dole queues right now.

Ha, ha, still blaming unions after all these years?

Under the current government, house prices have risen at very high rates, causing people to think they are rich, and people are defensive of this wealth and don't want to see it eroded with falling house prices.

Boom and bust is not linked to any particular government. The phenomenon is familiar to all governments.

House prices not been linked to inflation measures in any way.

How in a free market economy is this possible? Inflation (by definition) only goes in one direction. House prices go in two directions.

government was to impose limits on the amount one person can borrow on a mortgage as a function of their salary (say 3.5x single income/ 2.5x joint income/ any other sensible number), then that would have put a ceiling on how high house prices can rise. Instead, people have been borrowing >5x income, >100% ltv, self cert mortgages etc, and house prices have increased accordingly.

Credit checks taken by the lenders governs how much an individual can borrow. It is not something requiring legislation as such, more like financial maturity of the individual and sensible lending from the lender. What you suggest sounds impossible to govern or implement.

Poor regulation of buy to let investors which force out first time buyers and jack up the lower end of the market.

I think you'll find the effect of buy-to-let has been very small on the actual supply of first-time buyer properties. More likely, builders are not building and banks aren't lending to anybody with less than a 20% deposit.

The government talk a lot about affordable housing, but in reality don't look to solve the major cause of unaffordable housing.

eh? by producing affordable housing - surely this addresses unaffordable housing?

House prices not been linked to inflation measures in any way.
How in a free market economy is this possible? Inflation (by definition) only goes in one direction. House prices go in two directions.

It's more the other way round - Gordon Brown explicitly refused to include house prices in the inflation measures used by the BoE. If he had we might not be in quite such a mess now.

Credit checks taken by the lenders governs how much an individual can borrow. It is not something requiring legislation as such, more like financial maturity of the individual and sensible lending from the lender. What you suggest sounds impossible to govern or implement.

You have to remember people are stupid, they act as herd animals. For the last decade the media has banged on about getting on the housing ladder, a one way route to prosperity. The banks have been only too willing to buy into the same game. Too many people have bought property on interest only basis, enabling them to inflate the amount they can borrow, also pricing out those who are looking at buying on a repayment basis.

The role of government is to look outside the game and provide a framework, it is not to change the rules to their own benefit, or to buy into the same game as everyone else. There is a reason why banks have had tradtional lending criteria, they work.

But using traditional lending criteria in todays market does not work, houses and average wages are to diverse. Something has to give? For those saying that inflation will solve the debts, inflation only works if wages also increase, if wages are maintained, remember we are in a global market, then inflation will take the food from the table.

Listen to the media, the talk is no longer about the worst recession since the thirties the mood is more upbeat, it feeds through. Everything feels better.

But listen and everyone talks about the election and what is going to happen, no one really knows but it affects the behaviour of all.

Oh, and on the original topic, if the best figure they can come up with for the last quarter is 0.1% growth despite all the efforts they will have made to find money down the back of the nation's settees then I doubt whether we're really out of the last recession. So no, we're probably not heading for a second recession, just continuing the one we've come to know and love. 😥

I think you'll find the effect of buy-to-let has been very small on the actual supply of first-time buyer properties. More likely, builders are not building and banks aren't lending to anybody with less than a 20% deposit.

And why aren't builders building? and why are banks demanding deposits? if banks were confident they would get there money back then they will lend the money, if they don't think they will get there money back then they won't.

But buy to let has had a different effect, look at the market distortion of the last decade, flats, not family homes, that has been the mainstay of the building market. On top of this why are the units built some of the smallest in Europe and far smalller than historic standards?

As for what the builders are building don't get me started!

Says one lot of economists, whilst another lot says something totally different.

The trouble is, we're really deep in it this time, and if something isn't doen to start balancing the books, external factors rather than internal ones could start causing us problems due to decreasing confidence in us as a country.

This is what its about. Economists worrying about external factors and how it affects their business. Its simply trying to sway the electorate into making sure their votes in the next election doesn't result in a hung parliament.

All these stories on the run up to an election are about politics, not economics.

buy once but buy well
dither and a bargain will come
dont spend more than you earn
save stuff and re-use
enjoy the outdoors it's free
smile to people
shop local
set your kids barriers
encourage learning
work less and enjoy your time
change jobs even if your fat and middle aged
talk to your nieghboors
donate unwanted things to charity
wear a coat inside
go on holiday in this country
welcome difference
treat yourself when you can afford it
lie in bed and rest
if youre upset share it
speak to our friends
dont get angry
learn to cook
speak on forums
load of old tosh
but I'm sure the world would function better.

Trade unions have wrecked industry and lunch breaks are for losers. People who only care about "rights" and "entitlements" are good value for being on the dole queues right now.

@dave's mum

[img] [/img]

Looks like there was a housing spike under the Tories prior to the current Govt too? Maybe house prices aren't something the Govt can't control very well?

How would you suggest that house prices should be"linked to inflation"?

You also say:

I'm sure the government have been doing very nicely indeed from the tax of very large bank profits

What do you think the Govt has been doing with the money? The Govt isn't some offshore corporation. They spend the money on things like roads, schools, hospitals etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Labour supporter, but the problem isn't with Labour any more than with Conservative. IMHO we have many many very badly thought out systems in place, but it is more to do with apathy/greed/laziness of the ciitzenry than with the particular Govt that is in power at any time. I'm afraid that most people would rather do nothing to get involved with politics or even with the running of local services, then bitch about it all afterwards.

[img] [/img]

Cool, I'll plan to buy in about 5 years then, ta

So there was one hell of a boom, but the country was doing exceptionally well for a number of years so that's got to be expected, right? More confidence so people borrow more and the banks will lend more too. How did the government affect it?

Didn't 9/11 have something to with it too?

I did think a few years ago that borrowing 5-6 times my salary, to pay for a shoebox, was not good value. Those graphs seem to back up my feeling.

How did the government affect it?

Tempted to go into a long rant here but must resist... Monetary policy is set by the government; loose monetary policy - particularly after 9/11 - and a lack of regulation led to asset price inflation which in the UK's case gave the impression that the country was doing exceptionally well. One of the assets that inflated badly was house prices. The government knew after 9/11 that they risked a house price bubble but at the time considered it the lesser of 2 evils. Unfortunately we seem to have now based a lot of the economy on that bubble (people still seem to think we can pay our way in the world by selling houses to each other at ever increasing prices) and as it deflates we're seeing the consequences. IMHO, I am not an economist etc etc...

Rio,

But could Govt have realistically done anything different?

Unfortunately I think that they are a bit like a kayaker going down a set of rapids. They're going in a particular direction whatever happens. The only thing they get to do is try to keep the boat more upright than not.

If we want to paddle on a nice flat lake, that means a different system, not just a different Govt.

rprt - They could have included house prices in the inflation measures used by the BoE to set interest rates.

After 9/11 they loosened monetary policy to prevent a possible recession, but they probably did it too much and created a bubble that made a collapse almost invevitable. IMHO etc etc. Unfortunately they seem to have become like a man on drugs - house price inflation can lead to a feel-good factor if spun correctly that works in the governments favour. Hence the need to keep stoking it until at least the election...

They could have included house prices in the inflation measures used by the BoE to set interest rates.

House price inflation [i]was/is[/i] taken into account by the BoE when setting interest rates. The fact it was not used to measure inflation is not really relevant.
The BoE has always taken house price inflation into account when setting the interest rates.
And the setting of the interest rate has so much more impact then just cooling down a buoyant housing market. It would affect the exchange rate for a start and that would affect imports and exports.

What that Halifax graph shows to me is that in March 2009 the house price to earnings ratio was close to the long term average. Doesn't that mean that house prices are not currently too high?

The other graph shows that too.
What they both also show is that these factors are not stable.

@roach or the 'average'* wage is higher.

*which in itself is not a good thing to be basing any kind of policy/view on.

As the long term trend is around 3%, similar to inflation, doesn't that mean that houses never really get more valuable in the very long term?

if you think that business has any morals then you are in lala land.

but people have morals, and people may make decisions on who to place their business. Sometimes there is a backlash against companies, such as McDonalds or Nestle.

i know it doesn't always work, there was a great South Park episode about Wal-mart taking over everything and people shopping there anyway.

maybe a high street Bank will start advertising that it does not use the bonus culture or take big risks, and attract a lot more of peoples money that way.

"As the long term trend is around 3%, similar to inflation, doesn't that mean that houses never really get more valuable in the very long term?"

I have heard this argument before and there is probably a lot of truth in it. I think the problem this time was that people were far quicker to remove the perceived extra capital from their homes to buy other luxuries and/or to trade up.

The government cannot be blamed for peoples greed or the banks willingness to feed it. The government cannot also be blamed for suffering the contagion of a US problem. Personally (await flaming but), I think Brown and Darling have made a pretty good fist of reacting to the crisis and things could have been much worse without the monetary policy decisions they they have made.

Capitalism is where it is at, if you think that business has any morals then you are in lala land.

Life (particularly during the recession) is based on survival of the fittest whether you like it or not. People have to sharpen their game, work smarter, harder and no be scared to innovate or change. The world is your oyster and your choices are yours.

Trade unions have wrecked industry and lunch breaks are for losers. People who only care about "rights" and "entitlements" are good value for being on the dole queues right now.

Which sounds remarkably like Gordon Gekko's speech in Wall Street:

[i]The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.[/i]

And we all know what happened to him in the end, don't we children..?

And this bit

Life (particularly during the recession) is based on survival of the fittest whether you like it or not. People have to sharpen their game, work smarter, harder and no be scared to innovate or change. The world is your oyster and your choices are yours.

sounds like the sort of cod philosophy peddled by the likes of Macolm Gladwell.

Or Bernard Madoff.

Or Kenneth Lay.

Or Robert Maxwell.

Personally (await flaming but), I think Brown and Darling have made a pretty good fist of reacting to the crisis and things could have been much worse without the monetary policy decisions they they have made.

I agree. And so do an awful lot of economists. The only people flaming Brown et al for it are the Tories (quite pathetically) and the redtops.

As for the greed thing - it works in terms of overall wealth creation, but the only problem is that in order for you to win, there has to be a loser. The right-wingers amongst us would tell these losers that it's just too bad, you should've been a winner instead.

Would a 65 million-way tie be better than having some winners and some losers? That's the question.

Or Nick Leeson.

Damn, and I just brought some red braces.

Or Nick Leeson.

Excellent excuse: my bosses didn't understand what I was doing, but I continued to be reckless knowing the potential risks because it brought me short term financial gain, and then, oops, the whole tower of cards came tumbling down. But it wasn't my fualt. Etc.

the funny thing is oliver stone is bringing gordon gekho back......
[img] [/img]

Damn, and I just brought some red braces.

Is that you in the poster oldgit? You've aged well, what with the prison sentence and all that.... 😀

The key is to never shower 😐

On a serious note, my business only has a few months left in it. I'm dependant on construction large and small as well as industry and I'll need to see signs of improvement by April.

..or St Fred Goodwin

As pointed out earlier, what a load of pathetic Dail Mail style doom-mongering.

Yes there are challenges etc ahead but the worst that most people on here seem to have to worry about is buying one less titanium niche machine a year and sticking to just the one snowboarding holiday.

Boo-hoo.

what a load of pathetic Dail Mail style doom-mongering

As opposed to sticking your head in the sand? Toxic debt was in the news a year before things went belly up in the US.
And it was 6 months after before it's effects were fully felt in UK. I don't see this being any different to discussing the current situation in PIIGS Europe and it's effects in the UK.

A lot of people on here with a lot of monetary problems, grum. Weren't you here when the original recession started?

A lot of people on here with a lot of monetary problems, grum. Weren't you here when the original recession started?

OK, sorry but many people's monetary problems are self-inflicted.

I have had to reduce my hours at work due to long term illness and take a hefty pay cut, and I seemed to already earn less than most people on here (judging by the salaries thread), yet I manage ok. And if I lost my job I would have enough savings to manage for a little while.

I just find all the doom-mongering a little ridiculous when for most people it means that [i]maybe[/i] their incredibly comfortable lifestyle will become [i]marginally[/i] less comfortable, while millions of people around the world are starving/dying.

I'd have to agree. People these days haven't got a clue, me included!

OK, sorry but many people's monetary problems are self-inflicted.

So what if they are? You could say anyone buying a house and car based on a salary is gambling on them keeping their job? I know I sure as hell am - I mean if I lost my job I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage...

I just find all the doom-mongering a little ridiculous when for most people it means that maybe their incredibly comfortable lifestyle will become marginally less comfortable, while millions of people around the world are starving/dying.

Bit of a pointless thing to say, really. Yes, we know that there are people starving in the world, however if the economy tanks it'll still suck for us having to sell our houses or having them repossessed and all.

I also have savings but again, it'd still suck if I had to spend them. You seem to be reading strange stuff into what people are saying.

Bit of a pointless thing to say, really.

More pointless than the endless speculation and tabloid inspired fear mongering from people who have zero clue about what is going to happen in the future?

Having even a [i]tiny[/i] speck of perspective is 'a bit pointless'? Ok then.

As stated earlier "get a better paid job" is a very stupid argument

Not really. If a person can't afford the house that they want, there's only two options;
1) buy a smaller house or flat/in a different area/ of a lower value
2) earn more money
Not exactly rocket science.

what a load of pathetic Dail Mail style doom-mongering

Not really, just people sharing views on what they perceive to be going on. Now if you want doom-mongering I can point you to forums where people seem genuinely to believe that the world economy is so bad it's time to stock up on tinned food and get the rifles out before civilisation collapses... 🙂

More pointless than the endless speculation and tabloid inspired fear mongering from people who have zero clue about what is going to happen in the future?

Where are you reading that then? That's not what I took from this thread.

Having even a tiny speck of perspective is 'a bit pointless'?

Bringing it up when it's bleedin obvious is pointless, yes 🙂 Of course, we could all be dead/dying/starving etc etc, but that doesn't bring anything to the discussion about the economic crisis... If you don't want to read about it, don't - but just don't come on and berate those of us that do want an intelligent discussion.

Backhander - way to oversimplify. You're as helpful as grum!

I get a massive dose of deja vu from stuff like this.

The media talked up the crisis in the first place, people got way too scared and the recession was worse than it needed to be. Now the same seems to be happening again. To make matters worse, the to&&ers that are talking up the recession and putting forward the idiotic economic policies are now going to influence the outcome of the next election.

Yes, the same people who in the boom said 'put all your money in property, it will never go down!" Must be a sheep thing.

As stated earlier "get a better paid job" is a very stupid argument

Not really. If a person can't afford the house that they want, there's only two options;
1) buy a smaller house or flat/in a different area/ of a lower value
2) earn more money

or 3)rent until property prices become reasonable

Not exactly rocket science 🙄

Backhander - way to oversimplify.

Except that what he's saying hits the nail on the head. All the rest is pointless speculation and bullshit.

[i]I know 1876 was such a good year for industry. I miss the days when my employer could house me, dock my pay for breaking their machines, pay me in tokens for use only in their shops, injury me and then just throw me out on the streets to starve I mean who is not tired of having sick pay, paid holidays, Health and Safety I mean do we really need rights and entitlements ... You might want to check the statistics on who is most likely to be made redundant is it someone in a union or someone not in a union? Both groups contain "decent" people BTW just one lot has more ability to protect the rights and entitlements that people fought employers to get ...attitudes like yours are why we still need Unions today ...Lunch breaks are for losers [/i]
You will always be a £6 an hour man!

I sit on several H & S committees and am all for H & S standards improving, people have choices to make.

If you want to stay on the shop floor side of things accept what is good, ie a job.

Arthur Scabhill did a good job didnt he?

People like you need to try running a business, that will sort out your perspective!

3)rent until property prices become reasonable

Possibly, yes.
Do you suggest I must buy a house, even if they're poor value?

I'm not suggesting anything, but I would argue that they're not poor value. People will pay what a property is worth. In the long (I don't know how long) run it is doubtful that you will lose money on a property if you buy intelligently. IMHO, you could be waiting a long time trying to second guess the market. Alternatively, it may be the wisest thing you ever do! I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
What mystifies me is those who think that having a job [i]entitles[/i] them to home ownership.

Except that what he's saying hits the nail on the head. All the rest is pointless speculation and bullshit.

Lol!

I was talking about oversimplification of people's circumstances with regards their houses/mortgages etc. It takes a while to sell a house, you might not be able to find another that's suitable. It also costs a lot of money, and you may be in negative equity also which would mean selling would be a bad idea. If you lose your job, these things are all problems that you might face. And it would suck to have to face them, so that would be a bad thing. Hence people's concern.

As for the entire situation, oversimplifying it again is just a bit pointless. Might as well reduce everything to 'breathe in and out, eat, sleep'.

What do you think you are bringing to the conversation? This thread is now about political and economic ideology. That is to say, what the best way to increase net happiness for everyone. And yes, it's academic, because none of us is Brown, Darling, Cameron or Osborne. So what's your point, caller?

[i]People will pay what a property is worth.[/i]

British people will pay what they can borrow, any notion of worth is secondary. Sell and rent if you think people will have more trouble borrowing and buy if you think more people will be able to borrow more.

The Office for National Statistics said that the UK's gross domestic product - the broadest measure of overall economic performance - increased by 0.3pc in the final three months of 2009, rather than the 0.1pc expansion it had previously estimated. The revision was higher than most economists had expected, and supports suspicions in the City that the economy is in fact starting to bounce back from its deepest recession in living memory.

the Telegraph today

And where is this growth supposed to come from? The level of both private and public debt means that servicing it will prevent a rapid recovery. The scope for further keynesian stimulus is small and a Tory victory would put an end to it if dogma is followed. They've decided to stop printing money (quantative easing) and banks are both reluctant to lend and taking huge margins; that makes money both difficult and expensive to borrow.

I'd like the optimists to give me something such a technological innovation to pin my hopes on.

Interesting point also from the Telegraph that GDP was actually revised down - [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100004040/dont-be-fooled-gdp-was-actually-revised-down/ ]link[/url]. The extra "growth" is apparently because the previous quarters' GDP has been revised down even more. Might partly explain why Sterling went down on the news...

I'd like the optimists to give me something such a technological innovation to pin my hopes on.

Falklands oil, anyone?

chillax edukator we're about to start milkin a massive undiscovered oilfield off argentina

we're in the money, we're in the money.........

as long as on one or hope don't go bust who give's a ****