« Pecunia non olet | Main | Guess who couldn't give a toss about English farmers »

"Will work for food" sign seen in Downing Street.

Blairs' mortgage debt pegged at 4 million- The Times of India

Tony and Cherie Blair's extraordinary mortgage debts stand at almost 4 million. Public records show they took out a 3,467,500 mortgage much more than previously thought when they bought their London townhouse in 2004.

Mortgages on their other properties in Bristol and Durham add at least 472,500 to the debt mountain.

The news raises fresh questions about just how the Blairs can afford their property investments, which are thought to involve mortgage repayments of at least 16,000 a month.

Mortgage experts have also questioned how the Blairs could obtain a 95% mortgage on the 3.65 million London property when their lender, the Cheltenham and Gloucester, was offering only 75% in similar cases.

The Blairs are currently trying to find a new tenant for the London property, as film director Michael Caton-Jones is about to move out.

If the house stays empty, providing no rent, the mortgage repayments would swallow Blair's entire salary of 183,392 (113,000 after tax) in eight months.

Documents held by the Land Registry show that the Blairs jointly signed for the mortgage on their house in Connaught Square, Central London, on September 2, 2004.

They also have mortgages totalling 472,500 on two flats in Bristol which Cherie's controversially bought in 2002, and a mortgage for an undisclosed sum on Blair's constituency home in County Durham, bringing their total liabilities to at least 3,940,000.

At the time the Blairs bought the Connaught Square house, Downing Street said they would be selling the Bristol flats to help fund the purchase.

But the flats, in the Panoramic development, went down in value, so the Blairs decided not to sell. It meant they could raise a deposit of only 5% 182,500 on Connaught Square.

In unrelated news also:

Cherie embarks on money-spinning lecture tour


The Blairs, a 4m mortgage and a loss of moral authority | the Daily Mail

Either the couple have access to other funds or they have managed to persuade their building society they can be very confident of a large future income.
Such an income could come only from a future book deal on the couple's memoirs, linked with newspaper serialisation rights and the likely earnings they could expect from the lecture circuit. Both will depend completely on Mr Blair retaining his current popularity in the USA.
The Prime Minister has put himself in a position where he cannot risk offending American public opinion, because to do so could leave him financially submerged.


Where COULD his extra income be coming from? Money laundering - drugs? Like Tessa perhaps?

They need to get busy ala the Clintons, another "power couple" who have done VERY WELL as public servants. Wish I knew how to leverage my money the way these folks do.

Yet another example of just how unbelievably dense politicians can be. Why the everyday man and woman ever puts up with these imbeciles is beyond me. They have so many advantages, yet they consistently cock them up! Pathetic!!

Perhaps a reason that el Tonio is hanging onto the PMs job?

It really is ironic how lefties like our Dear Leader and co behave when it comes to money.

If a private individual or, God forbid, a Conservative, makes money by dealing in property (or offshore funds) it's evil and exploitative and they are pariahs to be be scorned. Yet as soon as they get the chance our socially conscious betters can't wait to get their snouts into the same trough.

The only difference appears to be that pariahs generally do it so much better.

I mean, how much research does it take to find out the average rent you are likely to get from a given property in a certain area?

[Hint to Cherry - phone up a few estate agents and describe the house you are thinking of buying and ask the chap on the other end how much he thinks you are likely to have to pay. I know this could be called lying, but you're a socialist, it should come naturally. Besides play acting is in your genes, isn't it?]

Calculating the cost of a mortgage is also bloody simple; most bank websites have calculators that do it for you or you can do it yourself in Excel. Other costs can be found out within a day and at the cost of a couple more phone calls. From there it really is back of the envelope maths. It definatly is not rocket science. And if even this is too hard, solicitors, estate agents and even banks can help you, especially if you are looking at property worth 3 million spondoolicks.

So how come two supposedly educated people can cock it up so magnificently? More importantly: how can we trust someone whose proven ability to run his own family's finances is so bad to run a country?


I think you can find it here...http://www.primelocation.com/uk-property-to-rent/details/id/KFSJWL2020324/ 2750 a week, recently refurbished on the west side of the square - 6 bedrooms. better value than the 4 bedder on the opposite side up for 2700 a week. Rough rule of thumb, per week * 1000 = value of house on a 5% yield. So point 1 he overpaid by the best part of 700k or 30%. Typical govt mark up I would say.

If he paid 3.5m and by the look of it must have spent at least 250k doing it up, then with Gordo's stamp he's in for 3.9m minimum. Assuming he can get this 2750 a week and with no voids (?), this little venture has so far cost him in the region of 3k a month to run the "trade" So 18 months in he is losing 54k - much more if you allow for the inevitable voids, not least to do the place up. The real problem will come as and when he tries to sell the place without relaising the loss.

Having said all that it could be this one. Oh dear, 3 houses all the same price in the same square. Doesn't look like a lot of demand

You can't be 53051 serious?!?

Post a comment