Manchester's Economy (updates)

[VDB]

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...121214%20(1574)

House sales set to rise, says Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

House sales are set to climb to their highest level since 2007 next year, amid signs that the market is slowly recovering, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) predicted today.

UK house prices will increase by two per cent cent over 2013, while rents will rise at double this rate as the squeeze on the sector continues, surveyors have forecast.

RICS said that factors such as a multibillion-pound Government scheme to boost lending will result in some improvements showing through in the housing market next year, as the wider economy remains tough and uncertain.

This is likely to result in a 3 per cent year-on-year increase in sales, with 960,000 transactions forecast to take place next year, which would be the highest number since 2007.

The pick-up in sales activity is forecast to be particularly noticeable in London, the South East, Wales and the North West.

However, the improvement will still be modest by historic standards as total sales in 2007 amounted to 1.62 million, and first-time buyers will still struggle to make the jump onto the property ladder.

RICS said that in London, the prime central market is likely to be "broadly stable" in 2013 following tax changes introduced in the spring, as much of the rest of the capital continues to see above-average price increases.

House price growth in London has consistently out-performed the rest of the country, amid strong interest from overseas buyers, but a new 7 per cent stamp duty rate placed on homes worth over £2m in March was criticised by estate agents, who said it would cause housing chains to collapse.

The South East and the North West are set to see a modest pick up in prices, but the rest of the country will either see prices dip slightly or remain flat, RICS said.

Meanwhile, the pressure on the rental sector is set to continue as the growth in new rental homes becoming available has been outpaced by rising demand from would-be tenants in every quarter since spring 2009, RICS said.

Around six out of 10 people living in the private rental sector are thought to be would-be buyers who are trapped in renting, either because they cannot raise the typical 20 per cent deposit they need to put down or meet lenders' toughened borrowing criteria.

RICS said that surveyors across the country are predicting that rents will rise by 4 per cent.

This prediction is higher than a recent survey of landlords by property search website Rightmove, which found that rents are set to rise by around 2 per cent next year on average as they reach the limits of affordability for tenants.

The RICS report said: "Inevitably there is some variation at a regional level but in no case are rents expected to be lower at the end of 2013 than where they currently stand."

Predictions for improvements in the housing market chime with those given by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) this week.

The CML said the market should feel more "stable and positive" in 2013, with modest year-on-year growth in lending to home buyers.

The number of mortgages on the market has increased by around a fifth since the Government's funding for lending scheme was launched at the start of August, although much of the strongest competition among lenders so far has been aimed at people with bigger deposits.

Simon Rubinsohn, RICS chief economist, said: "The amount of sales going through should see an increase across the country, climbing to its best level since 2007, as the funding for lending scheme helps boost the availability of mortgage finance.

"But these tentative signs of recovery in the sales market should not blind us to the very real problems that still exist.

"Even with the funding for lending scheme and some other government policies beginning to be felt in the mortgage market, many first-time buyers will continue to find it difficult to secure a sufficiently large loan to take an initial step on the housing market."

Despite the continued tough state of the economy, RICS predicts that repossessions will dip below 35,000 this year for the first time since 2007.

Figures for the first three quarters of this year show there have been 26,300 repossessions so far, showing an 8 per cent drop on the same period a year ago.

Lenders have put the decline down to good communication and arrears management by borrowers and lenders.

RICS said further improvements to the repossession figures are likely in 2013, amid a steady employment rate and a more helpful lending environment.

[LNGCats]

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...d-by-3-million interesting that whilst the top end economy in London is still booming the arse seems to have fallen out of it here.

[jrb]

MEN.

What does 2013 hold for Greater Manchester's economy?

December 27, 2012

Investment in infrastructure will be a crucial driver for economic growth in Greater Manchester next year as it faces ongoing threats from rising unemployment, the eurozone crisis and depressed consumer spending, experts said today.

Schemes to improve the Metrolink and rail network will help spread prosperity, boost competitiveness and attract talent to the region, but the benefits could take some time to filter through, they said.

Metrolink is set to be extended south to Didsbury, east to Ashton-under-Lyne and north to Rochdale during 2013.

Benefits from the £560m Northern Hub project to improve rail services in the north will also be felt in 2013, including better links between Manchester and Liverpool, though it will be 2018 before all the improvements are in place.

Baron Frankal, director of economic strategy at the New Economy think tank, said: “Transport infrastructure enables growth, and Metrolink's expansion will continue apace, through Oldham to Rochdale, then east, and south towards the airport.

“2013 will also see the Northern Hub move into final planning and the next stop on the high-speed rail journey, all helping to attract talented people.”

Darrell Matthews, north west regional director of the Institute of Directors, said: “There are some highly-successful businesses here for whom being able to move up and down the country swiftly is fundamental to their ability to competitively perform.”

Dr Brian Sloan, chief economist at Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, also highlighted the benefits that infrastructure projects will bring in 2013, including the building of Port Salford freight terminal.

The £238m project will ultimately create 3,800 jobs, but Dr Sloan cautioned that the full benefits may not be felt during 2013.

He said: “There are some infrastructure projects under way or about to start, supporting the construction sector into 2013.

“There is investment coming at Liverpool’s Superport, Port Salford and Airport City, with the Northern rail hub still further out in 2014, but rail electrification has begun. These are positive steps and could be game-changers for the region.

“Overall, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic for the economy of Greater Manchester, although this will require faith in the early part of 2013.”

He said unemployment is set to rise in the first half as temporary workers are released after Christmas and public sector job losses in the Spring add to the number of jobless.

Geoff White, policy manager for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the north and Midlands, agreed the full impact of infrastructure investment would take time to be fully felt.

He said: “It is expected that government funding schemes, will begin to have an effect. Unfortunately, you cannot start building projects overnight and the picture is more positive in the long term than it is short term.”

David Ost, regional director of manufacturers' organisation EEF, said firms must innovate and seek new markets to counter the continuing crisis in Europe.

He said: “The eurozone crisis has hit demand and weighed heavily on confidence, with few expectations the situation will turn around quickly.

“Manufacturers' focus on innovation is expected to pay some dividends, as product development will help lift sales.

“Emerging markets are also anticipated to support growth, as will the possibility of diversifying their customer base and selling goods and services into new supply chains.”

British Retail Consortium director-general Helen Dickinson said depressed consumer spending would continue to be a real threat to the sector.

She said: “We are heading into 2013 with no imminent signs that any fundamental turnaround in customers’ circumstances is coming.

“Retail has a vital role to play in supporting investment, job creation and the UK’s economic recovery, and, to maximise that potential, against that difficult background, there are measures that the government should take in 2013.

“For example, while we were really pleased that George Osborne announced plans to scrap the fuel duty rise in his Autumn Statement, we were disappointed that he didn’t pledge to freeze business rates in 2013.”

Rob Downes, of the Forum of Private Business lobby group, said access to finance would continue to be a challenge for small and medium-sized firms.

He said: “Lending remains scarce despite a concerted effort from government to get a handle on this, but little has been achieved.

“This time next year the Business Bank will almost certainly still not be ready to launch and, if the banks remain true to past form, it's hard to see how this situation will have changed much.”

[The Economist]

Originally Posted by Lookin Up

Ah come on, to be fair, he's just copying a link. If you want to say the article is wrong then that's fine.

Anyway Chester or MANchester, still good for the region

Chester is a way from Manchester and not a part of the same socio-economic group.

[moveupandon]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...d-by-3-million interesting that whilst the top end economy in London is still booming the arse seems to have fallen out of it here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...deprived-areas

"Council cuts 'targeted towards deprived areas'
Deprived boroughs have budgets cut by almost 10 times the amount lost by Tory-administered authorities in the rural south"

London gets £4 million for bloody fireworks on NYE and while North West is increasingly neglected.

Shameful. Yet we have to wait to 2015 to address the Tory (Condem) balance. Thank god this was a coalition. I dread to think what would be the state of play otherwise.

[VDB]

Originally Posted by moveupandon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...deprived-areas

"Council cuts 'targeted towards deprived areas'
Deprived boroughs have budgets cut by almost 10 times the amount lost by Tory-administered authorities in the rural south"

London gets £4 million for bloody fireworks on NYE and while North West is increasingly neglected.

Shameful. Yet we have to wait to 2015 to address the Tory (Condem) balance. Thank god this was a coalition. I dread to think what would be the state of play otherwise.

Bloody Tories.

[NQ Lee]

Originally Posted by moveupandon

London gets £4 million for bloody fireworks on NYE and while North West is increasingly neglected.

Oh do shut up. I am with you on the disgraceful cuts by the Tories towards the north-west but to attack the London new year celebrations is ridiculous. I believe it was the whole country that watched the new year fireworks, not just Londoners. And I may be wrong but I believe the cost is met by London council tax payments.

[js1000]

I was under the impression the fireworks in London were paid by the London City Hall? If central government is funding it to the tune of millions then it is a complete and utter joke. This lot seem to think money is like confetti.

No wonder Scotland wants independence. Good luck to them I say. We should probably do the same in the North West before the lot in London pillage our water, shale gas for paltry prices.

[iheartthenew]

The fireworks in Lomdon are paid for by the Greater London Authority who in term raise funds via sponsorship from business, so you can all remove those chips from your shoulders and stop whining. And not only that, nearly everyone I saw/heard/read interviewed who went to see them wasn't from London but across the UK...

[iheartthenew]

Originally Posted by moveupandon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...deprived-areas

"Council cuts 'targeted towards deprived areas'
Deprived boroughs have budgets cut by almost 10 times the amount lost by Tory-administered authorities in the rural south"

London gets £4 million for bloody fireworks on NYE and while North West is increasingly neglected.

Shameful. Yet we have to wait to 2015 to address the Tory (Condem) balance. Thank god this was a coalition. I dread to think what would be the state of play otherwise.

Many of those deprive boroughs receiving the cuts are in London... The roads there aren't paved with gold, many of the most hard up deprived crime ridden parts of the UK are in London and most of the borough councils and MPs are Labour.

And the reason the cuts are much smaller in the 'Southern Tory' areas is they receive a much much smaller grant from central government (the bit being cut) in the first place and receive a much larger proportion of their income from council tax receipts. Not that it's right though, there's a very good reason why the poorer areas have the grant.... But it's just a bit of political point scoring doing that comparison.

[js1000]

Originally Posted by iheartthenew

The fireworks in Lomdon are paid for by the Greater London Authority who in term raise funds via sponsorship from business, so you can all remove those chips from your shoulders and stop whining. And not only that, nearly everyone I saw/heard/read interviewed who went to see them wasn't from London but across the UK...

Chips from shoulders? Over some fireworks? All I disputed was whether nationally paid taxes were being funded for what is a local event.

[Lookin Up]

Originally Posted by moveupandon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...deprived-areas

"Council cuts 'targeted towards deprived areas'
Deprived boroughs have budgets cut by almost 10 times the amount lost by Tory-administered authorities in the rural south"

London gets £4 million for bloody fireworks on NYE and while North West is increasingly neglected.

Shameful. Yet we have to wait to 2015 to address the Tory (Condem) balance. Thank god this was a coalition. I dread to think what would be the state of play otherwise.

Moveupandon
Seriously. Why don't you do one.
This is a forum about the urban environment not a platform for your various political hatreds.

I guessing you're here because your family and friends in the real world have got bored listening to your bigotry.

Over on the LRFS thread, you've already achieved what Langsam has failed to do all these years - to split the opposition by turning it into a political issue, which it isn't. Langsam must love you.

I, like I suspect many others, won't sign your poxy petition because LRFS is not the main purpose of your intervention. You simply want to use it as a stick to bash politicians with.

I wish you would move up and on and wake up to the fact that all politicians regardless of political persuasion are not there to help you but themselves. Just grow up.

[Lookin Up]

Originally Posted by VDB

Bloody Tories.

Voldy, you're coming across as Father Dougal after Ted has just had a rant. 'Down with that kind of thing'.

Don't get sucked in by this troll.

[moveupandon]

Originally Posted by Lookin Up

Voldy, you're coming across as Father Dougal after Ted has just had a rant. 'Down with that kind of thing'.

Don't get sucked in by this troll.

Troll... Zzzzz. Really, am I the one who simply hangs out insulting people on threads. Guess that's your joy. Hope it makes you happy (but it doesn't seem to). "Just grow up" says the person who says "poxy petition", "troll" and sits around being insulting. Look up the defence mechanism projection and study it. You don't know me or what I talk about with family or friends, so guess away. I don't care! I think your psychic inabilities are quite amusing. Guess what...

Personally I think 4 million for fireworks is BS and to blow up that cash is pathetic regardless. Yes a cheap/ naive point possibly but a lot of issues behind this N Vs S divide. A business man had to donate a display to Manchester. Just saying. Twitter blew up criticising NYE fireworks (a lot of them Londoners who should probably be even more annoyed but Nationally people talking about inequality and this being somewhat wasteful and provocative), but I guess all these people are imbeciles and should "do one" (your phrase really shows your enviable maturity) if they don't agree with you. Call the thought police and shut all opinions that don't agree with you down if you can!

If you think the North West undoubtedly gets a fair deal all the time in terms of investment, development and there are no political biases, good for you. I don't.

As for the poxy petition aren't you the one that told me I'd failed before I started? I'd rather attempt something how ever wrong than just sit around in outrage and personal affront at peoples posts. Glad I've got under your skin!

Political bias. Yes some and I really don't care about that. I'm not stupid enough to believe any party isn't for themselves actually... sometimes it's about bad choices and worse choices. I'm not talking about a utopia, but clearly some policies are damaging the NW and there must be better choices or ways forward. Paint me as gullible and naive as you would like if it pleases you. Do you understand debate? Have your opinions and I'll have mine. Unlike you I'm flexible enough to know I cannot be correct all the time and though I'm biased (as are most) I'm open to learning if it doesn't go against my core beliefs.

I feel - skewed politics = bias = investment = marketing = money = consolidation of wealth = bias agenda and round we go. This happens on so many levels of social, political, economic levels and impedes democracy, transparency and equality and in the context of this forum in terms of urban investment, business, 'skyscrapers' and economic development.

For example, let's compare Manchester's relative Heritage destruction with the massive success story of London's heritage.

"Despite the challenges of recession, the number of sites on the Heritage
at Risk Register continues to fall. Excluding listed places of worship, for
which the survey is still incomplete,1,150 assets have been removed for
positive reasons since the Register was launched in 2008".

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/p...ister-2012.pdf

Of-course I know the whole country is in recession FFS. I personally agree with Liverpool's Major that the North is being targeted more and this relative neglect spells trouble. Just look how London is kicking out people on housing benefit to out regions or other cities. I doubt such a rich urban 'ghetto' will be mirrored anywhere else in the UK. And poor ghettos alongside, in the outskirts or an urban drift encouraged out of London. If investment biases into the 'best parts' of London or the 'charmed' south over the rest of the UK doesn't rise then...

Yes the country needs the capital but fair distribution isn't and doesn't occur (in my opinion). Let's look at some headlines and then discuss (which I know you love to do (cough))!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12464427
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/centrepiece/v06...astiriotis.pdf

Anyway, more important things to do and so sorry I've upset you personally and I'm so sure there's absolutely nothing in any of my biases and that everything I think is insubstantial junk without a thread of basis.

Off to hang out under my bridge dear billy goat. Troll fol de rol!

[EverythingButABeach]

Originally Posted by iheartthenew

The fireworks in Lomdon are paid for by the Greater London Authority who in term raise funds via sponsorship from business, so you can all remove those chips from your shoulders and stop whining. And not only that, nearly everyone I saw/heard/read interviewed who went to see them wasn't from London but across the UK...

That's the whole point of what is wrong here. People shouldn't feel they need to travel 200+ miles to watch fireworks. There should be equally decent displays paid for in all the main cities in the UK.

Manchester get the lowest total government spend per capita and London and Scotland get the most per capita. This is obviously unfair and wouldn't be tolerated in a civilised country (e.g. Germany/Netherlands/Norway etc). London only generates more money from business due to the fractional reserved banking system being located in London through the Bank of England (with offshoots in Edinburgh). This is a cost to economic activity, not a benefit, paid for with inflation to our fiat currency paper money that the rest of us in the real economy have to endure.

[iheartthenew]

Originally Posted by moveupandon

Personally I think 4 million for fireworks is BS and to blow up that cash is pathetic regardless. Yes a cheap/ naive point possibly but a lot of issues behind this N Vs S divide. A business man had to donate a display to Manchester.

I think the fugire quoted (£4m) is BS. According to the BBC last years fireworks cost £276k. Thats quite a jump to your figure, where did you get it from? (Please don't say Twitter...) Also this was funded by sponsorship from business, so not much different to having the display 'donated' by a business man, i.e funded by the private sector! Quite what a bunch of pretty sparkly fireworks in London has to do with Manchester's economy, inequality, the North/South divide.... I dont have a fucking clue....

For example, let's compare Manchester's relative Heritage destruction with the massive success story of London's heritage.

"Despite the challenges of recession, the number of sites on the Heritage
at Risk Register continues to fall. Excluding listed places of worship, for
which the survey is still incomplete,1,150 assets have been removed for
positive reasons since the Register was launched in 2008".

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/p...ister-2012.pdf

That paragraph you've quoted there relates to the register NATIONALLY. It is not about London. That statement appears at the top of eack downloadable publication (there is one for each region). It appears on the one for the NW too... the actual figures are as follows:

3.5% (75) of gade I and II* buildings and 2.7% (449) grade II buildings are at risk in London. 49 have been removed from the list while 115 have been added*

5.4% (109) Grade I and II* buildings in the North West are at risk. 4 have been removed while 7 have been added.

*adding 115 buildings to the at risk register surely distracts from any 'massive success' lol

Unfortunately I wouldn't say there is any 'great success' in London, it's slightly better figures are probably entirely down to higher property prices and a more bouyant property market, making the restoration/redevelopment of 'at risk' buildings far more viable, rather than any extra effort by EH or any conspiracy by the Torys. In fact London is underperforming compared to the national average on some measures.

[iheartthenew]

Originally Posted by EverythingButABeach

That's the whole point of what is wrong here. People shouldn't feel they need to travel 200+ miles to watch fireworks. There should be equally decent displays paid for in all the main cities in the UK

I'm not entire sure you're serious, I'm for a fairer country but I don't think we should be starting to worry about the equal distribution of fireworks

edit: in fact, if you believe so passionately about it, get off your backside and organise some better ones for next year, petition MCC to arrange a proper one, ring round for sponsorship and raise some money, rather than whinge that London has it better...

[moveupandon]

Originally Posted by iheartthenew

I think the fugire quoted (£4m) is BS. According to the BBC last years fireworks cost £276k. Thats quite a jump to your figure, where did you get it from? (Please don't say Twitter...) Also this was funded by sponsorship from business, so not much different to having the display 'donated' by a business man, i.e funded by the private sector! Quite what a bunch of pretty sparkly fireworks in London has to do with Manchester's economy, inequality, the North/South divide.... I dont have a fucking clue....

That paragraph you've quoted there relates to the register NATIONALLY. It is not about London. That statement appears at the top of eack downloadable publication (there is one for each region). It appears on the one for the NW too... the actual figures are as follows:

3.5% (75) of gade I and II* buildings and 2.7% (449) grade II buildings are at risk in London. 49 have been removed from the list while 115 have been added*

5.4% (109) Grade I and II* buildings in the North West are at risk. 4 have been removed while 7 have been added.

*adding 115 buildings to the at risk register surely distracts from any 'massive success' lol

Unfortunately I wouldn't say there is any 'great success' in London, it's slightly better figures are probably entirely down to higher property prices and a more bouyant property market, making the restoration/redevelopment of 'at risk' buildings far more viable, rather than any extra effort by EH or any conspiracy by the Torys. In fact London is underperforming compared to the national average on some measures.

Serves me right, Ha, ha! My point badly made. I should read more carefully! Its called defending myself in a rush when being jumped on for comments and misrepresented by opportunists like the ever charming "Lookin Up".

But reading more carefully of those 115 are "places of worship". I can't even find a pdf on Manchester! Surely that must be telling itself. "The biggest challenge for London remains the condition
of its burial grounds and cemeteries, several of which
are also important registered landscapes. In the last year
a comprehensive survey of their condition has resulted in
more than 70 new entries onto the Register" 115 - 70+ = lower than 45. City of 8 million.

I have no idea what the proportion would be here. But shows I should read in detail.

I should have probably used this in the argument instead to discuss London-centric investment! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

We have none currently being built and being accused of going off the point, this is called SkyScraperCity! And I so wanted to see Piccadilly Tower, Canopus, Crown, Origins buildings et al... Currently so p"ed off with unfinished raggedy buildings, delipidated buildings, few green city spaces, New Islington just left in a mess to name a few city concerns (oh and that awful Berlin Wall Piccadilly that should be so unacceptable anywhere especially as pre 2008 crash). So venting disappointment I guess.

Yeah I'm selfish and pro Manchester & North West, but so what!

I think more people need to be. Nothing's ever changed by the oh, that's good, there's probably no need to question that, I'm sure that's the only way to do things type of sentiment that is so passionless, pallid and pious. Questions were made to be asked!

[moveupandon]

Originally Posted by EverythingButABeach

That's the whole point of what is wrong here. People shouldn't feel they need to travel 200+ miles to watch fireworks. There should be equally decent displays paid for in all the main cities in the UK.

Manchester get the lowest total government spend per capita and London and Scotland get the most per capita. This is obviously unfair and wouldn't be tolerated in a civilised country (e.g. Germany/Netherlands/Norway etc). London only generates more money from business due to the fractional reserved banking system being located in London through the Bank of England (with offshoots in Edinburgh). This is a cost to economic activity, not a benefit, paid for with inflation to our fiat currency paper money that the rest of us in the real economy have to endure.

Absolutely agree.

e.g. Transport

"TRANSPORT SPENDING PER HEAD

London - £2,731
South East of England - £792
East Midlands - £311
West Midlands - £269
Yorkshire and Humberside - £201
North West of England - £134
Eastern England - £43
South West of England - £19
North East of England - £5"

Some people are constructively challenging my posts in ways I cannot argue with, others "without agendas" certainly seem to have some! It's like if you lean to the left and like them have some poorly constructed arguments, you become a clueless communist set on some corrupt anti-establishment propaganda!

I know all stats/ arguments hide something and no 'source is 100%'! The point of discussions no?

I also feel in terms of a 'Firework' debate, I don't think Fireworks should be priority in these times! I mean call me grumpy, but bloody fireworks are not necessary! Especially that much ££££££!

Londoners could gladly go out on the lash or watch Jools Holland/ Graham Norton or Channel 4 live music and not have them.

No fireworks = not a big deal. Less fireworks = less wasted cash in the air. Less London fireworks & more even elsewhere (and even show these strange wayward 'places' on national TV rather than the bloody Thames and Houses of Parliament and the tedious backdrop of that wheel) = in this together nationally, other cities exist and less perceptions of division caused by Londoncentric politics.

Even if its tokenistic, don't blow up millions (esp after the Jubilee & 2012)!

Its a tedious point perhaps but surely per populous if there are going to be very expensive sparkly things blowing up in the sky in a few seconds, why just London? The United Kingdom isn't just bloody London like some international people think! Sorry but that display seriously annoyed me and genuinely gets under my skin... and yes I am auditioning for being a 2013 Scrooge.

It's as simple who gets the biggest piece of the pie! I think we all know the answer to that.

[iheartthenew]

It goes without saying that the spending across the UK is unfair. But as with all statistics, without knowing the full backgrounf, reasoning and weighting they do not show the whole story

I hope you find me 'constructively challenging' as if you cant deal with me you're screwed if you come against someone who really opposes you! I have no agenda, I'm not affiliated to any political party (but because I dare criticise Labour I've been called names and be made out to be a nasty Tory despite having never voted for them and never will). That sort of shit cuts both ways. But when you deliberately play the political card (such as with LRFS) it will disenfranchise quite a few people - even those who probably vote Labour - who know that it undermines an otherwise good arguement.

And still with the bloody fireworks! Why just London? Geez, maybe you should look closer to home, if London (and its businesses) wants to spend its own money on fireworks it can. No-one is stopping Manchester from doing the same.... Unless you think government should step in to either ban London from having them or subsidise other cities just so they dont feel left out?????? Seriously, I cant beleive we're still going on about it, screaming like a teenager that its so unfair....