I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
1. Nationalise banks. 2. Repossess all mortgaged properties. 3. Offer occupants secure low-rent tenancies with cancellation of mortgage. 4. Offer owners of (unmortgaged) properties 20% of pre-nationalisation market price AND a secure tenancy. If they don't want a tenancy, offer them another 5% maybe. Enough so that the state has a supply of houses to let to those who didn't get a tenancy under 3. 5. Don't allow sub-letting.
Basically kill house ownership and accommodation insecurity.
Willl I be allowed any private property under this regime?
Sure. If you owned a house (i.e. actually owned it, without a mortgage), you could keep it, offer it for sale, do what you want with it. (You'd be responsible for repairs, mind.) Also you could buy one from someone in that position if you could agree a price with them.
Another point is that right now if the restrictive state system called planning permission were to be removed, house prices would PLUMMET. I wouldn't be surprised if the materials needed to build what is currently a £300K house could be bought for about £50K.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
1. Nationalise banks. 2. Repossess all mortgaged properties. 3. Offer occupants secure low-rent tenancies with cancellation of mortgage. 4. Offer owners of (unmortgaged) properties 20% of pre-nationalisation market price AND a secure tenancy. If they don't want a tenancy, offer them another 5% maybe. Enough so that the state has a supply of houses to let to those who didn't get a tenancy under 3. 5. Don't allow sub-letting.
Basically kill house ownership and accommodation insecurity.
Willl I be allowed any private property under this regime?
Sure. If you owned a house (i.e. actually owned it, without a mortgage), you could keep it, offer it for sale, do what you want with it. (You'd be responsible for repairs, mind.) Also you could buy one from someone in that position if you could agree a price with them.
Another point is that right now if the restrictive state system called planning permission were to be removed, house prices would PLUMMET. I wouldn't be surprised if the materials needed to build what is currently a £300K house could be bought for about £50K.
The materials, maybe; the labour, no.
Even the materials, though, there's been massive inflation in costs over the last year.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
1. Nationalise banks. 2. Repossess all mortgaged properties. 3. Offer occupants secure low-rent tenancies with cancellation of mortgage. 4. Offer owners of (unmortgaged) properties 20% of pre-nationalisation market price AND a secure tenancy. If they don't want a tenancy, offer them another 5% maybe. Enough so that the state has a supply of houses to let to those who didn't get a tenancy under 3. 5. Don't allow sub-letting.
Basically kill house ownership and accommodation insecurity.
Willl I be allowed any private property under this regime?
Sure. If you owned a house (i.e. actually owned it, without a mortgage), you could keep it, offer it for sale, do what you want with it. (You'd be responsible for repairs, mind.) Also you could buy one from someone in that position if you could agree a price with them.
Another point is that right now if the restrictive state system called planning permission were to be removed, house prices would PLUMMET. I wouldn't be surprised if the materials needed to build what is currently a £300K house could be bought for about £50K.
If you exclude the labour, the connections to services, the intrinsic cost of land for non-housing or even agri use, etc.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
Britain is two economies.
The first (33%) has professional jobs and the potential to earn a world class salary, but decent housing is essentially unaffordable unless you inherit.
The second (66%) has no professional jobs, and the living standards are now essentially “Eastern European”. The government has no interest in it whatsoever. Housing is more affordable, though probably still a bit expensive compared to Brno or Bratislava.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
You can move to 1000 places that are commutable to NYC though.
Try commuting to London from County Durham.
In the age of wfh you can have a London job but live in and work from Durham most of the week, staying over 1 or 2 days a week in London when you need to be in the office
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
You can move to 1000 places that are commutable to NYC though.
Try commuting to London from County Durham.
In the age of wfh you can have a London job but live in and work from Durham most of the week, staying over 1 or 2 days a week in London when you need to be in the office
It will be interesting to see whether that remains the case, or whether jobs - and especially “starter” jobs - return slowly to requiring you to be in the office.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
Britain is two economies.
The first (33%) has professional jobs and the potential to earn a world class salary, but decent housing is essentially unaffordable unless you inherit.
The second (66%) has no professional jobs, and the living standards are now essentially “Eastern European”. The government has no interest in it whatsoever. Housing is more affordable, though probably still a bit expensive compared to Brno or Bratislava.
Far more own property in the North and Midlands on average wages there than own property in London even on an average London wage
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
It's Bolton, not Gulag. You can go out there, there are jobs, there are humans and the young people can make friends with them. You might not have the childcare bank of mum and grandma but the lower housing costs will cover that. London is a global first-class city specialising in high-cost services: not everyone can or should try to live there.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
Britain is two economies.
The first (33%) has professional jobs and the potential to earn a world class salary, but decent housing is essentially unaffordable unless you inherit.
The second (66%) has no professional jobs, and the living standards are now essentially “Eastern European”. The government has no interest in it whatsoever. Housing is more affordable, though probably still a bit expensive compared to Brno or Bratislava.
Far more own property in the North and Midlands on average wages there than own property in London even on an average London wage
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
1. Nationalise banks. 2. Repossess all mortgaged properties. 3. Offer occupants secure low-rent tenancies with cancellation of mortgage. 4. Offer owners of (unmortgaged) properties 20% of pre-nationalisation market price AND a secure tenancy. If they don't want a tenancy, offer them another 5% maybe. Enough so that the state has a supply of houses to let to those who didn't get a tenancy under 3. 5. Don't allow sub-letting.
Basically kill house ownership and accommodation insecurity.
Willl I be allowed any private property under this regime?
Sure. If you owned a house (i.e. actually owned it, without a mortgage), you could keep it, offer it for sale, do what you want with it. (You'd be responsible for repairs, mind.) Also you could buy one from someone in that position if you could agree a price with them.
Another point is that right now if the restrictive state system called planning permission were to be removed, house prices would PLUMMET. I wouldn't be surprised if the materials needed to build what is currently a £300K house could be bought for about £50K.
If you exclude the labour, the connections to services, the intrinsic cost of land for non-housing or even agri use, etc.
Incentivise building upwards? One or two more storeys, that is. Cuba has a strange system where owning a house is fine but selling it isn't allowed. Many youngsters build houses on top of their parents' houses.
But I think something should be done on the demand side too - basically kill the mortgage as a thing. De-normalise massive personal debt. Kill the private landlord system into the bargain. Normalise housing security.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
It's Bolton, not Gulag. You can go out there, there are jobs, there are humans and the young people can make friends with them. You might not have the childcare bank of mum and grandma but the lower housing costs will cover that. London is a global first-class city specialising in high-cost services: not everyone can or should try to live there.
Bolton has Manchester, and Manchester is not the worst UK city in terms of opportunities.
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
1. Nationalise banks. 2. Repossess all mortgaged properties. 3. Offer occupants secure low-rent tenancies with cancellation of mortgage. 4. Offer owners of (unmortgaged) properties 20% of pre-nationalisation market price AND a secure tenancy. If they don't want a tenancy, offer them another 5% maybe. Enough so that the state has a supply of houses to let to those who didn't get a tenancy under 3. 5. Don't allow sub-letting.
Basically kill house ownership and accommodation insecurity.
Willl I be allowed any private property under this regime?
Sure. If you owned a house (i.e. actually owned it, without a mortgage), you could keep it, offer it for sale, do what you want with it. (You'd be responsible for repairs, mind.) Also you could buy one from someone in that position if you could agree a price with them.
Another point is that right now if the restrictive state system called planning permission were to be removed, house prices would PLUMMET. I wouldn't be surprised if the materials needed to build what is currently a £300K house could be bought for about £50K.
If you exclude the labour, the connections to services, the intrinsic cost of land for non-housing or even agri use, etc.
Incentivise building upwards? One or two more storeys, that is. Cuba has a strange system where owning a house is fine but selling it isn't allowed. Many youngsters build houses on top of their parents' houses.
But I think something should be done on the demand side too - basically kill the mortgage as a thing. De-normalise massive personal debt. Kill the private landlord system into the bargain. Normalise housing security.
Not entirely clear how somebody can move to a new area in your society... it worked technically in Soviet Russia but they didn't have such a right...
- Astonishingly well executed ceremonial. There is something mesmerising and comforting about the rhythmic marching, the muffled drums and the tolling bell - almost like a heartbeat honouring the life that has gone. - The remarkable self-possession of George and Charlotte. - The bagpipes - especially the Skye Boat Song as the cortège arrived at Windsor. - The music: The Lord is My Shepherd with that descant was truly special. - The crowds along the route, especially at Windsor - the scenes at the Long Walk were quite something. Those redcoats! - The way the pallbearers did their job - no easy task given how heavy it must have been.
And The Queue: patient, determined, dignified - but also funny, affectionate & nicely eccentric. For all that she was Queen, there was a modesty about her - and all those who turned out to honour her reflected that in the way they did her proud, as she did us proud.
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
No.
People ultimately want to go where they can access a job market. After that they look at amenities.
Again, the issue for the UK that outside London, the economy doesn’t really produce very many “good” jobs.
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
No.
People ultimately want to go where they can access a job market. After that they look at amenities.
Again, the issue for the UK that outside London, the economy doesn’t really produce very many “good” jobs.
There are plenty of accountancy, IT and law firms in Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff etc and far cheaper accommodation
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
No.
People ultimately want to go where they can access a job market. After that they look at amenities.
Again, the issue for the UK that outside London, the economy doesn’t really produce very many “good” jobs.
There are plenty of accountancy and law firms in Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff etc and far cheaper accommodation
No. The problem is that there aren’t, actually, plenty of such firms. Or, if there are, they don’t pay very well.
See all the research and the entire premise of the government’s now discarded levelling up strategy for more details.
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
No.
People ultimately want to go where they can access a job market. After that they look at amenities.
Again, the issue for the UK that outside London, the economy doesn’t really produce very many “good” jobs.
There are plenty of accountancy and law firms in Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff etc and far cheaper accommodation
No. The problem is that there aren’t, actually, plenty of such firms. Or, if there are, they don’t pay very well.
See all the research and the entire premise of the government’s now discarded levelling up strategy for more details.
Average salary for a PWC associate in Manchester is £40k, for a manager is £53k. That goes a lot further there than London
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
This would never work because houses can't be built for £50,000. The cheapest they can possibly be built and sold for is £200,000 each under current build costs. The only way houses could be £50,000 is if there is a massive collapse in demand - as is already the case in some parts of the north of England where houses can be bought for £50k in the current market.
If land was free, and builders were mass producing cookie cutter designs, would houses really cost £200k to build?
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
To do so they would have to build literally all over the countryside and we would also then have far more houses than people needing to live in them.
In some parts of the UK you can still buy property for under £60k anyway
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
No.
People ultimately want to go where they can access a job market. After that they look at amenities.
Again, the issue for the UK that outside London, the economy doesn’t really produce very many “good” jobs.
There are plenty of accountancy and law firms in Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff etc and far cheaper accommodation
No. The problem is that there aren’t, actually, plenty of such firms. Or, if there are, they don’t pay very well.
See all the research and the entire premise of the government’s now discarded levelling up strategy for more details.
Average salary for a PWC associate in Manchester is £40k, for a manager is £53k. That goes a lot further there than London
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
No.
People ultimately want to go where they can access a job market. After that they look at amenities.
Again, the issue for the UK that outside London, the economy doesn’t really produce very many “good” jobs.
There are plenty of accountancy and law firms in Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff etc and far cheaper accommodation
No. The problem is that there aren’t, actually, plenty of such firms. Or, if there are, they don’t pay very well.
See all the research and the entire premise of the government’s now discarded levelling up strategy for more details.
Average salary for a PWC associate in Manchester is £40k, for a manager is £53k. That goes a lot further there than London
They don’t exist in quantity and the opportunities for advancement aren’t there.
It really is that simple, even if it is inconvenient for you as you fear the consequences of more housing in / near London.
They do, all the big national firms have offices in Manchester and Birmingham. Even if you earn a little less than London your cost of living will be a lot less.
If you insist on living in the biggest global city in Europe in London doing a job you could do in a cheaper but smaller city elsewhere in the UK your cost of living including for housing will always be much higher. That is however many houses you build in and around London and how much of the greenbelt you concrete over
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
To do so they would have to build literally all over the countryside and we would also then have far more houses than people needing to live in them.
In some parts of the UK you can still buy property for under £60k anyway
£50k is an odd number. That is like ≈ just 2x annual median salary iirc.
30 years ago average house prices were around 3x Average salary, a bit higher in London, and did at times drop below 3x salary.
Interest rates were eye-watering by modern standards though.
But there was MIRAS.
I’ve seen research that suggests that mortgage payments were “cheaper” even tough interest rates were higher.
My first house (2 bed terrace in a trendy bit of Leicester) was £42 000 in 1992, about 3 times my salary. Those houses sell for £220 000 now.
Interest rates were such that it cost me 40% of salary though, and I think broadly people do still spend that sort of percentage on housing. The relationship between interest rates and house prices finds an equilibrium at about that point.
You could reduce house prices by jacking up interest rates, but the affordability would still be around 40% of salary, once the initial shocks had broken a few people. I am not convinced there would be much social gain.
Here's the thing: back in the old days, inflation was high. This meant that - while you might be paying 10% interest rates - your income was going up at 10% a year too.
It made moving very painful for a year or two, and then it quickly settled down. It also meant that the real value of loans had dramatically reduced in a couple of years.
Note that inflation has hit the industry hard in the last few years. (I don't think that will last, just as I don't think automobile prices will stay as high here -- and used car prices have already started falling.
You can see the possibilities, when you take a look at a guest home owned by Elon Musk: A $49,500 guest home.
There is one very clever thing about the design: It has a hinge in the middle so it can be transported on a truck, and then unfolded at the site.
I'm building a high end prefab house here in LA: it arrives entirely as a series of TEUs.
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
I wouldn't call Newham (average house price £441k according to Rightmove), Bromley (average house price £538k according to Rightmove) or Hounslow (average house price £509k according to Rightmove) "top 5% of areas", especially as London by itself makes up 10%+ of the overall population and presumably significantly more of the under 30s population.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that perhaps siphoning off all the productivity gains of having a world city like London into predatory rentierism and utterly insane land speculation is a bad idea?
What a week it’s been . We certainly will never see anything like this again , a unique moment in British history .
I think Charles will be fine as King . I do think he was genuinely moved by the reaction of the public and I think he handled things well .
I’m neither a strong monarchist nor a Republican . I think the monarchy is generally harmless , are overall good ambassadors for the country, help charities and so I’m happy to see that continue .
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
I wouldn't call Newham (average house price £441k according to Rightmove), Bromley (average house price £538k according to Rightmove) or Hounslow (average house price £509k according to Rightmove) "top 5% of areas", especially as London by itself makes up 10%+ of the overall population and presumably significantly more of the under 30s population.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that perhaps siphoning off all the productivity gains of having a world city like London into predatory rentierism and utterly insane land speculation is a bad idea?
Because they’ve done very well out of the existing dispensation, and it easier to blame “avocado eaters” than concede that you’ve spent the last twenty years voting to impoverish the young.
Only includes midterms for US House occurring at midterm of a President's FIRST term (party in caps = controlled US House majority going into first-term midterm elections)
2018 Trump, REPS -40 seats & lost House majority, Trump lost re-election to 2nd term as POTUS 2010 Obama, DEMS -63 seats & lost House majority; Obama WON re-election 2002 Bush 2, REPS +8 seat & retained House majority; Bush WON re-election 1994 Clinton, DEMS -54 and LOST House majority; Clinton WON re-election 1990 Bush 1, Reps -8 and stayed in House minority; Bush lost re-election 1982 Reagan, Reps -26 and stayed in House minority; Reagan WON re-election 1978 Carter, DEMS -15 and retained House majority; Carter lost election 1974 Ford, Reps -48 and stayed in House minority; Ford lost election 1970 Nixon, Reps -12 and stayed in House minority; Nixon WON re-election 1966 Johnson, DEMS -47 and retained House; Johnson didn't run again & VP Humphrey lost election 1962 Kennedy, DEMS -4 and retained House; Kennedy assassinated but exVP Johnson WON election 1954 Eisenhower, REPS -18 and LOST House; Eisenhower WON re-election 1946 Truman, DEMS -54 and LOST House; Truman WON election 1934 Roosevelt, DEMS +9 and retained House' Roosevelt WON re-election 1930 Hoover, REPS -52 and retained House (barely for few months); Hoover lost re-election 1926 Coolidge, REPS -9 and retained House; Coolidge didn't run again, but Sec. Hoover WON election 1922 Harding, REPS -77 and retained House; Harding died but exVP Coolidge WON election 1914 Wilson, DEMS -61 and retained House; Wilson WON re-election 1910 Taft, REPS -56 and LOST House; Taft lost re-election 1902 Roosevelt, REPS +9 and retained House; Roosevelt WON re-election
Out of 20 midterms listed from 1902 through 2018, President OR his Party's nominee WON = 13 and lost 7
Out of 10 midterms since 1966, POTUS or Party WON = 5 and lost = 5
Note that in only 3 of 20 mid-terms listed above, did a first-term POTUS's party gain in net US House seats (TR Roosevelt 1902, FD Roosevelt in 1934, Bush 1 in 2002).
Further note that a severe lost of House seats is often (but not always) the harbinger of POTUS re-election defeat. Whereas a small net seat loss (likely scenario for 2022) can be a bad omen, but much less often, historically speaking.
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
I wouldn't call Newham (average house price £441k according to Rightmove), Bromley (average house price £538k according to Rightmove) or Hounslow (average house price £509k according to Rightmove) "top 5% of areas", especially as London by itself makes up 10%+ of the overall population and presumably significantly more of the under 30s population.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that perhaps siphoning off all the productivity gains of having a world city like London into predatory rentierism and utterly insane land speculation is a bad idea?
Because they’ve done very well out of the existing dispensation, and it easier to blame “avocado eaters” than concede that you’ve spent the last twenty years voting to impoverish the young.
Having zero to contribute to your serious & significant discussion, just want to inquire re: very tangential point:
Aren't a significant proportion of 'avocado eaters" actually eating mushy peas, but claiming its avocado in order to avoid social embarrassment by their peers?
AND isn't this also true, the other way around, in other parts of the UK and other social circles?
Note that inflation has hit the industry hard in the last few years. (I don't think that will last, just as I don't think automobile prices will stay as high here -- and used car prices have already started falling.
You can see the possibilities, when you take a look at a guest home owned by Elon Musk: A $49,500 guest home.
There is one very clever thing about the design: It has a hinge in the middle so it can be transported on a truck, and then unfolded at the site.
I'm building a high end prefab house here in LA: it arrives entirely as a series of TEUs.
The numbers look amazing, frankly.
Please assure us that you are NOT building an AirBNB catering to some of 'Leon's' extra-terrestrial knapping clientele?
A race of superior beings endowed with extraordinary curiosity AND armed with the finest in flint dildos, free roaming our planet "to boldly go where no man has even gone before" does NOT sound like a good idea to me . . .
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
I wouldn't call Newham (average house price £441k according to Rightmove), Bromley (average house price £538k according to Rightmove) or Hounslow (average house price £509k according to Rightmove) "top 5% of areas", especially as London by itself makes up 10%+ of the overall population and presumably significantly more of the under 30s population.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that perhaps siphoning off all the productivity gains of having a world city like London into predatory rentierism and utterly insane land speculation is a bad idea?
Because they’ve done very well out of the existing dispensation, and it easier to blame “avocado eaters” than concede that you’ve spent the last twenty years voting to impoverish the young.
Having zero to contribute to your serious & significant discussion, just want to inquire re: very tangential point:
Aren't a significant proportion of 'avocado eaters" actually eating mushy peas, but claiming its avocado in order to avoid social embarrassment by their peers?
AND isn't this also true, the other way around, in other parts of the UK and other social circles?
No.
But what is true that on top of the basic economic dysfunction caused by bad planning, Britain seems to suffer from a cultural snobbery issue about certain areas.
The middle classes won’t be seen dead in certain areas and this retards economic growth, because it bids up the “acceptable” areas and leaves the “unacceptable” ones improverished.
This happens in the US, too, but more because of race than class.
rcs1000 said: "I'm building a high end prefab house here in LA: it arrives entirely as a series of TEUs.
The numbers look amazing, frankly."
Amazingly good compared to conventional construction? Or what?
So... what makes the prefab space interesting from my perspective (as an occasional property developer) is that you can recycle your capital much more quickly.
If I build a traditional spec house for sale in LA, it might look like this:
Jan 2022 - buy land $200,000 July 2022 - get plans approved Jan 2023 - break ground - pay $500,000 September 2023 - house complete - pay $500,000 Jan 2024 - sell house for $2,000,000
If I do (high end) prefab, it might look like this:
Jan 2022 - buy land $200,000 April 2022 - get plans approved June 2023 - break ground - pay $750,000 September 2023 - house complete - pay $250,000 Jan 2023 - sell house for $1,750,000
In the first case, I've spent $1,250,000 and realised $2,000,000 for a profit of $750,000. In the second, I've spent $1,250,000 and realised $1,750,000 for a profit of $500,000.
But here's the thing. I'm recycling my capital twice as quickly in the second example. In the first, I made $750,000 every two years, whereas I can make $500,00/year in the second. Margins are lower, but profits higher.
Is it at all possible that we have a generation that believes they should all live in the top 5% of areas? Like super Lake Wobegon syndrome where everyone is two-sigma above average?
I wouldn't call Newham (average house price £441k according to Rightmove), Bromley (average house price £538k according to Rightmove) or Hounslow (average house price £509k according to Rightmove) "top 5% of areas", especially as London by itself makes up 10%+ of the overall population and presumably significantly more of the under 30s population.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that perhaps siphoning off all the productivity gains of having a world city like London into predatory rentierism and utterly insane land speculation is a bad idea?
Because they’ve done very well out of the existing dispensation, and it easier to blame “avocado eaters” than concede that you’ve spent the last twenty years voting to impoverish the young.
Having zero to contribute to your serious & significant discussion, just want to inquire re: very tangential point:
Aren't a significant proportion of 'avocado eaters" actually eating mushy peas, but claiming its avocado in order to avoid social embarrassment by their peers?
AND isn't this also true, the other way around, in other parts of the UK and other social circles?
No.
But what is true that on top of the basic economic dysfunction caused by bad planning, Britain seems to suffer from a cultural snobbery issue about certain areas.
The middle classes won’t be seen dead in certain areas and this retards economic growth, because it bids up the “acceptable” areas and leaves the “unacceptable” ones improverished.
This happens in the US, too, but more because of race than class.
The issue we have is that the British middle classes will do everything they can to retard economic growth in the "acceptable" areas as well, because they live there - and God forbid anyone else has the chance to!
What a week it’s been . We certainly will never see anything like this again , a unique moment in British history .
I think Charles will be fine as King . I do think he was genuinely moved by the reaction of the public and I think he handled things well .
I’m neither a strong monarchist nor a Republican . I think the monarchy is generally harmless , are overall good ambassadors for the country, help charities and so I’m happy to see that continue .
I'd bascially agree, for me HM Queen represented our last tangible link with Empire and WW2, hopefully we can move on and become a more fwd looking country.... not sure thats easy given the stranglehood of the pensioner vote (esp in England)
rcs1000 said: "I'm building a high end prefab house here in LA: it arrives entirely as a series of TEUs.
The numbers look amazing, frankly."
Amazingly good compared to conventional construction? Or what?
So... what makes the prefab space interesting from my perspective (as an occasional property developer) is that you can recycle your capital much more quickly.
If I build a traditional spec house for sale in LA, it might look like this:
Jan 2022 - buy land $200,000 July 2022 - get plans approved Jan 2023 - break ground - pay $500,000 September 2023 - house complete - pay $500,000 Jan 2024 - sell house for $2,000,000
If I do (high end) prefab, it might look like this:
Jan 2022 - buy land $200,000 April 2022 - get plans approved June 2023 - break ground - pay $750,000 September 2023 - house complete - pay $250,000 Jan 2023 - sell house for $1,750,000
In the first case, I've spent $1,250,000 and realised $2,000,000 for a profit of $750,000. In the second, I've spent $1,250,000 and realised $1,750,000 for a profit of $500,000.
But here's the thing. I'm recycling my capital twice as quickly in the second example. In the first, I made $750,000 every two years, whereas I can make $500,00/year in the second. Margins are lower, but profits higher.
I think you've got your years wrong in the second set of figures - unless building prefab involves time travel.
A few questions, if I may: why does using prefab allow the plans to be approved quicker, and for the ground to be broken quicker? In the US market, what is the flexibility of the design (how many options are there)?
I can see going prefab making architects' plans much quicker (AIUI a significant time issue for low-yield developers here in the UK), but would not quicken the planning process.
Well said some of the responses, others responded as I thought they would. No surprise.
You want to troll and have a free pass against being trolled back? Here's a clue to what is going on: I have children in their 20s. I would prefer the country to be arranged in a way which favours their and their generation's interests over mine. I vote with that in mind. You carry on being a twat if you want, but I don't see how you expect it to help with your mental health issues.
rcs1000 said: "I'm building a high end prefab house here in LA: it arrives entirely as a series of TEUs.
The numbers look amazing, frankly."
Amazingly good compared to conventional construction? Or what?
My aunt had a house delivered on edge of Lake District (Estate agent) near Barrow-in-Furness (actual) in bits on back of a lorry c 20years ago - It is superb - scandinavian level of insulation.
When Putin’s war against Ukraine began in February, Russian politicians and the Russian media expected it to be a conflict between profoundly unequal forces. As so often in this war, they have turned out to be right, but not in the way they expected….
….The most immediate and serious consequence for the Kremlin is that Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive destroys the last shreds of Russia’s reputation as a great military power. This had already been very badly damaged by the multiple failures of the first six months of the war, but the September rout is of a different order and represents a profound international humiliation for the Russian armed forces.
Good morning everyone. Quite a pleasant one here weatherwise! I'm surprised nobody has yet asked here when the coronation is going to be; I'm expecting next June or July, when the weather should be reasonable.
Saddening account of libraries as targets in the culture wars:
'This summer, Kuhl and a group of colleagues planned to launch a bookmobile – a library in a bus that would visit various sites across town, including three schools. But when a law criminalizing anybody who makes visually explicit materials available at a school went into effect in late August, they decided to keep the bookmobile away from schools.
“This is a brand new law and it hasn’t been tested,” said a shaken-sounding Kuhl. “It’s not worth it.” [...] "We are unsure on what someone can interpret as sexually explicit,” Kuhl said. “To be blunt, it feels like we’ve moved backwards in time. We’re in a culture of fear.”'
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Good morning everyone. Quite a pleasant one here weatherwise! I'm surprised nobody has yet asked here when the coronation is going to be; I'm expecting next June or July, when the weather should be reasonable.
Morning, OKC.
Foxy did yesterday at one point. He made the point it affects holiday planning, esp. as it involves an extra bank holiday. Bit shit if one finds one has booked Center Parcs at the same time ... our neighbours just back from that, and not at all happy.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Labour are not keen on it either though. Too many of their voters work in industries dependent on office culture, e.g. youngsters, transport workers, public sector frontline staff.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
The thing that always baffles me is the political love for Pret and their utterly tedious sandwiches.
A major medical scandal coming down the tracks - a peer reviewed critique of the “Dutch Protocol” which forms the basis for much medical intervention in the medicalised (hormone/surgery) treatment of gender dysphoria.
Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.
Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.
But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.
Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners. Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.
I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.
I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.
What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.
All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
All earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rates.
I find it bemusing how some people say that the self-employed shouldn't pay NI because they don't get holiday pay/sick pay etc but NI doesn't pay for any of those. Holiday pay is paid out of the employers labour budget, same as the rest of the employees pay, not by the taxpayer.
I do think we should amalgamate NI and income tax. For one thing it would make people see how much the Government is really getting from employment. I am in an interesting position as I am operating inside IR35 as a consultant so am paying full tax and NI on the employees side but also paying all the NI and other costs that an employer would normally pay. As a result, I can see that the Government takes about 50p of every pound paid by a company to an employee. Which is kind of ridiculous.
Thank you, yes, I 100% agree with you, this is something I've long railed against. Yes it is utterly ridiculous and both of Employee NI and Employers NI are just another tax on wages and not something 'better'.
Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.
Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.
But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.
Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners. Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.
I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.
I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.
What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.
All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
All earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rates.
I find it bemusing how some people say that the self-employed shouldn't pay NI because they don't get holiday pay/sick pay etc but NI doesn't pay for any of those. Holiday pay is paid out of the employers labour budget, same as the rest of the employees pay, not by the taxpayer.
I do think we should amalgamate NI and income tax. For one thing it would make people see how much the Government is really getting from employment. I am in an interesting position as I am operating inside IR35 as a consultant so am paying full tax and NI on the employees side but also paying all the NI and other costs that an employer would normally pay. As a result, I can see that the Government takes about 50p of every pound paid by a company to an employee. Which is kind of ridiculous.
Thank you, yes, I 100% agree with you, this is something I've long railed against. Yes it is utterly ridiculous and both of Employee NI and Employers NI are just another tax on wages and not something 'better'.
the state is just too big - never understood why debates (on here as well) are all about which taxes to raise to pay for things or whether to borrow more when the obviosu solution is to cut state spending - anyone can see state spending is not at all efficient - why would it be it is spending somebody else's money
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
For those employees a decent employer could introduce other perks, flexible working or compressed hours for example. It’s lazy and disingenuous not to allow some staff benefits just because not everyone can have them. If you’re going to make that argument at least follow the logic and advocate that the CEO has the same employment terms as the janitor or the receptionist.
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
The realism is that she's not going to get a deal. Not about its lack of desirability.
It's certainly a remarkable change of tune from Ms Truss after the last, what is it, 5-6 years. Could be very damaging for her with the Party.
I'm not sure. Carlotta's post above suggests Brexit is going through another regeneration, one in which trade deals are no longer a Brexit benefit. It's been said many times before, but Brexit has taken on some of the characteristics of a Communist revolution. Trade deals were now never a good idea.
I don't think in and of itself this is dangerous for Truss within the party, though there's the risk that with each Brexit-Reinvention cycle a few more supporters fall away as they realise #notmybrexit.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Labour are not keen on it either though. Too many of their voters work in industries dependent on office culture, e.g. youngsters, transport workers, public sector frontline staff.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
The government trying to stop it reminds me of Edward III trying to regulate feudal wages back to pre-plague levels in the aftermath of the Black Death.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
The thing that always baffles me is the political love for Pret and their utterly tedious sandwiches.
Whoever does their PR is a genius.
but Pret is all about saying you are a middle class health watching person- lunchtime virtue signalling
"A man who was invited to the Queen's funeral has missed the service because of rail disruption.
Barry Boffy MBE, from Bristol, said "events conspired against me" after his train was stopped near Slough.
The former British Transport Police employee eventually got to London but was then turned around by police who said he would not make it in time.
Before setting off Mr Boffy had said: "These kind of things [the invitation] don't happen to people like me."
The former British Transport Police head of inclusion and diversity was due to attend the state funeral after being awarded an MBE in this year's Queens Birthday Honours."
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
The realism is that she's not going to get a deal. Not about its lack of desirability.
It's certainly a remarkable change of tune from Ms Truss after the last, what is it, 5-6 years. Could be very damaging for her with the Party.
I'm not sure. Carlotta's post above suggests Brexit is going through another regeneration, one in which trade deals are no longer a Brexit benefit. It's been said many times before, but Brexit has taken on some of the characteristics of a Communist revolution. Trade deals were now never a good idea.
I don't think in and of itself this is dangerous for Truss within the party, though there's the risk that with each Brexit-Reinvention cycle a few more supporters fall away as they realise #notmybrexit.
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
The realism is that she's not going to get a deal. Not about its lack of desirability.
She's going to get many deals, just probably not with the USA given the USA has been turning against free trade for years now.
Sensible Brexiteers who believe in free trade have said a lot more about the potential of CPTPP and other potential deals than the USA anyway, in no small part because of this.
"A man who was invited to the Queen's funeral has missed the service because of rail disruption.
Barry Boffy MBE, from Bristol, said "events conspired against me" after his train was stopped near Slough.
The former British Transport Police employee eventually got to London but was then turned around by police who said he would not make it in time.
Before setting off Mr Boffy had said: "These kind of things [the invitation] don't happen to people like me."
The former British Transport Police head of inclusion and diversity was due to attend the state funeral after being awarded an MBE in this year's Queens Birthday Honours."
I had some sympathy until i got to his job title . Presumably he got his MBE on the back of his job as well so "these kind of things DO actually happen to him" - should have got an earlier train
Good morning everyone. Quite a pleasant one here weatherwise! I'm surprised nobody has yet asked here when the coronation is going to be; I'm expecting next June or July, when the weather should be reasonable.
If you want to attend you could book lots of hotel nights on a free cancellation basis and keep the relevant ones once the dates are announced. Prices could double once the date is confirmed.
"A man who was invited to the Queen's funeral has missed the service because of rail disruption.
Barry Boffy MBE, from Bristol, said "events conspired against me" after his train was stopped near Slough.
The former British Transport Police employee eventually got to London but was then turned around by police who said he would not make it in time.
Before setting off Mr Boffy had said: "These kind of things [the invitation] don't happen to people like me."
The former British Transport Police head of inclusion and diversity was due to attend the state funeral after being awarded an MBE in this year's Queens Birthday Honours."
I had some sympathy until i got to his job title .
Mind, it did affect all travellers - almost no trains still today. There's obviously been some very serious damage to the overhead wires. They seem to be keeping quiet about what caused it.
On topic, I don't know if Biden will run again. I, like many, assumed he'd be there for a term and then not seek the nomination, having saved the Republic from Trump. Now I'm not so sure (on either account, since Trump just won't flush).
However, regardless of what Biden eventually does, I think he has to act like he will run again. History is full of examples of lame ducks, on both sides of the Atlantic. LBJ chose not to seek renomination and spent the last bit of his term unable to do anything. Blair and Cameron both tried to get out at a time of their choosing and it rather backfired. If he wants the authority to do anything, Biden needs to pretend that he will run again.
Good morning everyone. Quite a pleasant one here weatherwise! I'm surprised nobody has yet asked here when the coronation is going to be; I'm expecting next June or July, when the weather should be reasonable.
Morning, OKC.
Foxy did yesterday at one point. He made the point it affects holiday planning, esp. as it involves an extra bank holiday. Bit shit if one finds one has booked Center Parcs at the same time ... our neighbours just back from that, and not at all happy.
I expect that we will get an announcement at some point in the next few weeks. Clearly there needs to be a lot of planning.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
For those employees a decent employer could introduce other perks, flexible working or compressed hours for example. It’s lazy and disingenuous not to allow some staff benefits just because not everyone can have them. If you’re going to make that argument at least follow the logic and advocate that the CEO has the same employment terms as the janitor or the receptionist.
Sometimes I get the impression this site is *far* too middle-class, with even the "up the workers!" lefties having f-all idea about the working class. Vast tranches of workers cannot work from home - from supermarket workers to builders. And lots of 'office' workers cannot realistically work from home either, especially if they interact with the public.
I'm all for flexible working hours - but even then there are large numbers of jobs where that is not applicable.
Interesting article. It's clear the US is thinking seriously about how Ukraine will be able to sustain the military effort against Russia to the pint of winning the war. Without new supplies, there's a danger of them running short over the next few months.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
The thing that always baffles me is the political love for Pret and their utterly tedious sandwiches.
Whoever does their PR is a genius.
but Pret is all about saying you are a middle class health watching person- lunchtime virtue signalling
On the topic of next president I know there's been a queen's funeral and all on that has been a bit distracting but have people been paying attention to PB-favourite Ron DeSantis's "hilarious" PR stunt where he organised the kidnapping of 48 people and transported them across state lines?
I'm sure this is playing well with the MAGA base but the story is not necessarily developing to his (or Greg Abbot's) advantage.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Labour are not keen on it either though. Too many of their voters work in industries dependent on office culture, e.g. youngsters, transport workers, public sector frontline staff.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
The government trying to stop it reminds me of Edward III trying to regulate feudal wages back to pre-plague levels in the aftermath of the Black Death.
He failed. Market forces were too strong.
Actually, he didn't altogether fail. In many parts of England, feudal dues (not wages) continued to be enforced for decades - more rigorously than they had been before in at least one case, the palatinate of Durham.
Which meant that eventually you had the Peasants' Revolt, the Glyndwr Rebellion and finally the crises of Henry VI's reign.
Whereas Edward, with a little more forethought, could have modernised his economy properly and had a state that would have taken Europe by storm.
Even more frustrating as he and Henry V nearly did that anyway!
This is a house in Finland. 200 sqm, built in the 1980's and extended in 2002. Surveyors report says it is in good condition. Includes an external sauna and a swimming pool. Half an acre plot on the edge of town. The starting price is 98,000 Euros.
Only includes midterms for US House occurring at midterm of a President's FIRST term (party in caps = controlled US House majority going into first-term midterm elections)
2018 Trump, REPS -40 seats & lost House majority, Trump lost re-election to 2nd term as POTUS 2010 Obama, DEMS -63 seats & lost House majority; Obama WON re-election 2002 Bush 2, REPS +8 seat & retained House majority; Bush WON re-election 1994 Clinton, DEMS -54 and LOST House majority; Clinton WON re-election 1990 Bush 1, Reps -8 and stayed in House minority; Bush lost re-election 1982 Reagan, Reps -26 and stayed in House minority; Reagan WON re-election 1978 Carter, DEMS -15 and retained House majority; Carter lost election 1974 Ford, Reps -48 and stayed in House minority; Ford lost election 1970 Nixon, Reps -12 and stayed in House minority; Nixon WON re-election 1966 Johnson, DEMS -47 and retained House; Johnson didn't run again & VP Humphrey lost election 1962 Kennedy, DEMS -4 and retained House; Kennedy assassinated but exVP Johnson WON election 1954 Eisenhower, REPS -18 and LOST House; Eisenhower WON re-election 1946 Truman, DEMS -54 and LOST House; Truman WON election 1934 Roosevelt, DEMS +9 and retained House' Roosevelt WON re-election 1930 Hoover, REPS -52 and retained House (barely for few months); Hoover lost re-election 1926 Coolidge, REPS -9 and retained House; Coolidge didn't run again, but Sec. Hoover WON election 1922 Harding, REPS -77 and retained House; Harding died but exVP Coolidge WON election 1914 Wilson, DEMS -61 and retained House; Wilson WON re-election 1910 Taft, REPS -56 and LOST House; Taft lost re-election 1902 Roosevelt, REPS +9 and retained House; Roosevelt WON re-election
Out of 20 midterms listed from 1902 through 2018, President OR his Party's nominee WON = 13 and lost 7
Out of 10 midterms since 1966, POTUS or Party WON = 5 and lost = 5
Note that in only 3 of 20 mid-terms listed above, did a first-term POTUS's party gain in net US House seats (TR Roosevelt 1902, FD Roosevelt in 1934, Bush 1 in 2002).
Further note that a severe lost of House seats is often (but not always) the harbinger of POTUS re-election defeat. Whereas a small net seat loss (likely scenario for 2022) can be a bad omen, but much less often, historically speaking.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
For those employees a decent employer could introduce other perks, flexible working or compressed hours for example. It’s lazy and disingenuous not to allow some staff benefits just because not everyone can have them. If you’re going to make that argument at least follow the logic and advocate that the CEO has the same employment terms as the janitor or the receptionist.
Sometimes I get the impression this site is *far* too middle-class, with even the "up the workers!" lefties having f-all idea about the working class. Vast tranches of workers cannot work from home - from supermarket workers to builders. And lots of 'office' workers cannot realistically work from home either, especially if they interact with the public.
I'm all for flexible working hours - but even then there are large numbers of jobs where that is not applicable.
True, though those jobs are fairly well dispersed round the country anyway.
One of the UK's problems is that our prosperity depends too much on highly-paid jobs that are tied to being in London. WFH might allow those to be done in other places, which can do a lot for levelling up.
And yes, it's unfair, but that unfairness is there already. Have you seen what these people get in pay and perks?
Back to the grim reality of inflation, decay and war. 😬
And a very good morning to you too, Jonathan.
It was good to escape from that for a bit. There are real problems and it’s going to be frustrating watching Truss waste time following a narrow, ideological driven agenda and sad to see her set up hyper partisan dividing lines to squeeze out some kind of GE win. This morning, I have no appetite for all that nonsense.
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
The realism is that she's not going to get a deal. Not about its lack of desirability.
It's certainly a remarkable change of tune from Ms Truss after the last, what is it, 5-6 years. Could be very damaging for her with the Party.
Is it?
There's a difference between talking about the likelihood of trade deals in general, or with the USA in particular.
Liam Fox as Trade Secretary didn't bother signing the trade deals that Liz Truss made, or those she got started working on which are coming down the tracks, but instead spent years banging on about a trade deal with the USA.
One reason I respect her a lot is she's been working on free trade deals and has made a lot of noise about potential trade deals with the CPTPP and others. She's not been talking about a trade deal with the USA.
The reality is that no trade deal is getting through the US Senate anyway. Its not happening, but free trade is good and there's many alternatives to America.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Labour are not keen on it either though. Too many of their voters work in industries dependent on office culture, e.g. youngsters, transport workers, public sector frontline staff.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
The government trying to stop it reminds me of Edward III trying to regulate feudal wages back to pre-plague levels in the aftermath of the Black Death.
He failed. Market forces were too strong.
Who will be Wat Tyler to lead the WFH peasant's revolt?
"A man who was invited to the Queen's funeral has missed the service because of rail disruption.
Barry Boffy MBE, from Bristol, said "events conspired against me" after his train was stopped near Slough.
The former British Transport Police employee eventually got to London but was then turned around by police who said he would not make it in time.
Before setting off Mr Boffy had said: "These kind of things [the invitation] don't happen to people like me."
The former British Transport Police head of inclusion and diversity was due to attend the state funeral after being awarded an MBE in this year's Queens Birthday Honours."
I had some sympathy until i got to his job title .
Mind, it did affect all travellers - almost no trains still today. There's obviously been some very serious damage to the overhead wires. They seem to be keeping quiet about what caused it.
Comments
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
(Sorry for omitting that. Have to stop trying to do three things at once. Two I can handle, but not three.)
The first (33%) has professional jobs and the potential to earn a world class salary, but decent housing is essentially unaffordable unless you inherit.
The second (66%) has no professional jobs, and the living standards are now essentially “Eastern European”. The government has no interest in it whatsoever. Housing is more affordable, though probably still a bit expensive compared to Brno or Bratislava.
But I think something should be done on the demand side too - basically kill the mortgage as a thing. De-normalise massive personal debt. Kill the private landlord system into the bargain. Normalise housing security.
- Astonishingly well executed ceremonial. There is something mesmerising and comforting about the rhythmic marching, the muffled drums and the tolling bell - almost like a heartbeat honouring the life that has gone.
- The remarkable self-possession of George and Charlotte.
- The bagpipes - especially the Skye Boat Song as the cortège arrived at Windsor.
- The music: The Lord is My Shepherd with that descant was truly special.
- The crowds along the route, especially at Windsor - the scenes at the Long Walk were quite something. Those redcoats!
- The way the pallbearers did their job - no easy task given how heavy it must have been.
And The Queue: patient, determined, dignified - but also funny, affectionate & nicely eccentric. For all that she was Queen, there was a modesty about her - and all those who turned out to honour her reflected that in the way they did her proud, as she did us proud.
It has been quite a day. Quite some 10 days.
Requiescat in pace.
People ultimately want to go where they can access a job market. After that they look at amenities.
Again, the issue for the UK that outside London, the economy doesn’t really produce very many “good” jobs.
The problem is that there aren’t, actually, plenty of such firms. Or, if there are, they don’t pay very well.
See all the research and the entire premise of the government’s now discarded levelling up strategy for more details.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/how-job-pricewaterhouse-cooper-manchester-24329910.amp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40DxS8FEA0
It really is that simple, even if it is inconvenient for you as you fear the consequences of more housing in / near London.
If you insist on living in the biggest global city in Europe in London doing a job you could do in a cheaper but smaller city elsewhere in the UK your cost of living including for housing will always be much higher. That is however many houses you build in and around London and how much of the greenbelt you concrete over
It made moving very painful for a year or two, and then it quickly settled down. It also meant that the real value of loans had dramatically reduced in a couple of years.
The numbers look amazing, frankly.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that perhaps siphoning off all the productivity gains of having a world city like London into predatory rentierism and utterly insane land speculation is a bad idea?
I think Charles will be fine as King . I do think he was genuinely moved by the reaction of the public and I think he handled things well .
I’m neither a strong monarchist nor a Republican . I think the monarchy is generally harmless , are overall good ambassadors for the country, help charities and so I’m happy to see that continue .
The numbers look amazing, frankly."
Amazingly good compared to conventional construction? Or what?
Judging by the pictures, I would say it is nicer than at least 90 percent of the new efficiency apartments in the US. At least.
Only includes midterms for US House occurring at midterm of a President's FIRST term
(party in caps = controlled US House majority going into first-term midterm elections)
2018 Trump, REPS -40 seats & lost House majority, Trump lost re-election to 2nd term as POTUS
2010 Obama, DEMS -63 seats & lost House majority; Obama WON re-election
2002 Bush 2, REPS +8 seat & retained House majority; Bush WON re-election
1994 Clinton, DEMS -54 and LOST House majority; Clinton WON re-election
1990 Bush 1, Reps -8 and stayed in House minority; Bush lost re-election
1982 Reagan, Reps -26 and stayed in House minority; Reagan WON re-election
1978 Carter, DEMS -15 and retained House majority; Carter lost election
1974 Ford, Reps -48 and stayed in House minority; Ford lost election
1970 Nixon, Reps -12 and stayed in House minority; Nixon WON re-election
1966 Johnson, DEMS -47 and retained House; Johnson didn't run again & VP Humphrey lost election
1962 Kennedy, DEMS -4 and retained House; Kennedy assassinated but exVP Johnson WON election
1954 Eisenhower, REPS -18 and LOST House; Eisenhower WON re-election
1946 Truman, DEMS -54 and LOST House; Truman WON election
1934 Roosevelt, DEMS +9 and retained House' Roosevelt WON re-election
1930 Hoover, REPS -52 and retained House (barely for few months); Hoover lost re-election
1926 Coolidge, REPS -9 and retained House; Coolidge didn't run again, but Sec. Hoover WON election
1922 Harding, REPS -77 and retained House; Harding died but exVP Coolidge WON election
1914 Wilson, DEMS -61 and retained House; Wilson WON re-election
1910 Taft, REPS -56 and LOST House; Taft lost re-election
1902 Roosevelt, REPS +9 and retained House; Roosevelt WON re-election
Out of 20 midterms listed from 1902 through 2018, President OR his Party's nominee WON = 13 and lost 7
Out of 10 midterms since 1966, POTUS or Party WON = 5 and lost = 5
Note that in only 3 of 20 mid-terms listed above, did a first-term POTUS's party gain in net US House seats (TR Roosevelt 1902, FD Roosevelt in 1934, Bush 1 in 2002).
Further note that a severe lost of House seats is often (but not always) the harbinger of POTUS re-election defeat. Whereas a small net seat loss (likely scenario for 2022) can be a bad omen, but much less often, historically speaking.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election
Aren't a significant proportion of 'avocado eaters" actually eating mushy peas, but claiming its avocado in order to avoid social embarrassment by their peers?
AND isn't this also true, the other way around, in other parts of the UK and other social circles?
A race of superior beings endowed with extraordinary curiosity AND armed with the finest in flint dildos, free roaming our planet "to boldly go where no man has even gone before" does NOT sound like a good idea to me . . .
But what is true that on top of the basic economic dysfunction caused by bad planning, Britain seems to suffer from a cultural snobbery issue about certain areas.
The middle classes won’t be seen dead in certain areas and this retards economic growth, because it bids up the “acceptable” areas and leaves the “unacceptable” ones improverished.
This happens in the US, too, but more because of race than class.
If I build a traditional spec house for sale in LA, it might look like this:
Jan 2022 - buy land $200,000
July 2022 - get plans approved
Jan 2023 - break ground - pay $500,000
September 2023 - house complete - pay $500,000
Jan 2024 - sell house for $2,000,000
If I do (high end) prefab, it might look like this:
Jan 2022 - buy land $200,000
April 2022 - get plans approved
June 2023 - break ground - pay $750,000
September 2023 - house complete - pay $250,000
Jan 2023 - sell house for $1,750,000
In the first case, I've spent $1,250,000 and realised $2,000,000 for a profit of $750,000.
In the second, I've spent $1,250,000 and realised $1,750,000 for a profit of $500,000.
But here's the thing. I'm recycling my capital twice as quickly in the second example. In the first, I made $750,000 every two years, whereas I can make $500,00/year in the second. Margins are lower, but profits higher.
A few questions, if I may: why does using prefab allow the plans to be approved quicker, and for the ground to be broken quicker? In the US market, what is the flexibility of the design (how many options are there)?
I can see going prefab making architects' plans much quicker (AIUI a significant time issue for low-yield developers here in the UK), but would not quicken the planning process.
https://twitter.com/pl1918/status/1571923627196432385?s=46&t=aminitR7LLwGsawTVCPZFw
Call it what you like: fawning, mawkish, mad - this is immense soft cultural power and we need to use it well
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1571994304645664769
Nobody barely said a word.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1572090197948661760
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
….The most immediate and serious consequence for the Kremlin is that Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive destroys the last shreds of Russia’s reputation as a great military power. This had already been very badly damaged by the multiple failures of the first six months of the war, but the September rout is of a different order and represents a profound international humiliation for the Russian armed forces.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/putin-wont-be-able-to-deflect-blame-for-much-longer
I'm surprised nobody has yet asked here when the coronation is going to be; I'm expecting next June or July, when the weather should be reasonable.
Saddening account of libraries as targets in the culture wars:
'This summer, Kuhl and a group of colleagues planned to launch a bookmobile – a library in a bus that would visit various sites across town, including three schools. But when a law criminalizing anybody who makes visually explicit materials available at a school went into effect in late August, they decided to keep the bookmobile away from schools.
“This is a brand new law and it hasn’t been tested,” said a shaken-sounding Kuhl. “It’s not worth it.” [...] "We are unsure on what someone can interpret as sexually explicit,” Kuhl said. “To be blunt, it feels like we’ve moved backwards in time. We’re in a culture of fear.”'
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Foxy did yesterday at one point. He made the point it affects holiday planning, esp. as it involves an extra bank holiday. Bit shit if one finds one has booked Center Parcs at the same time ... our neighbours just back from that, and not at all happy.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
Whoever does their PR is a genius.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238?scroll=top&needAccess=true
(I wasn't around much, as I spent most of the day gardening.)
Now that we have a king, these sorts of events will all take much longer, since he can only move along the floor one square at a time.
https://mobile.twitter.com/David_Strathdee/status/1571804677834153986
He should try having a beef burger instead.
I don't think in and of itself this is dangerous for Truss within the party, though there's the risk that with each Brexit-Reinvention cycle a few more supporters fall away as they realise #notmybrexit.
He failed. Market forces were too strong.
Barry Boffy MBE, from Bristol, said "events conspired against me" after his train was stopped near Slough.
The former British Transport Police employee eventually got to London but was then turned around by police who said he would not make it in time.
Before setting off Mr Boffy had said: "These kind of things [the invitation] don't happen to people like me."
The former British Transport Police head of inclusion and diversity was due to attend the state funeral after being awarded an MBE in this year's Queens Birthday Honours."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-62954760
Sensible Brexiteers who believe in free trade have said a lot more about the potential of CPTPP and other potential deals than the USA anyway, in no small part because of this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62929206
However, regardless of what Biden eventually does, I think he has to act like he will run again. History is full of examples of lame ducks, on both sides of the Atlantic. LBJ chose not to seek renomination and spent the last bit of his term unable to do anything. Blair and Cameron both tried to get out at a time of their choosing and it rather backfired. If he wants the authority to do anything, Biden needs to pretend that he will run again.
I'm all for flexible working hours - but even then there are large numbers of jobs where that is not applicable.
Without new supplies, there's a danger of them running short over the next few months.
American Tanks For Ukraine Are ‘Absolutely On The Table’
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/american-tanks-for-ukraine-are-absolutely-on-the-table
2km of wire damage on the GW main line.
Coming up on Thursday: will the Bank of England raise interest rates by 0.5% or 0.75%?
I think a lot of people haven't appreciated how much further they are expected to rise.
I'm sure this is playing well with the MAGA base but the story is not necessarily developing to his (or Greg Abbot's) advantage.
Which meant that eventually you had the Peasants' Revolt, the Glyndwr Rebellion and finally the crises of Henry VI's reign.
Whereas Edward, with a little more forethought, could have modernised his economy properly and had a state that would have taken Europe by storm.
Even more frustrating as he and Henry V nearly did that anyway!
One of the UK's problems is that our prosperity depends too much on highly-paid jobs that are tied to being in London. WFH might allow those to be done in other places, which can do a lot for levelling up.
And yes, it's unfair, but that unfairness is there already. Have you seen what these people get in pay and perks?
There's a difference between talking about the likelihood of trade deals in general, or with the USA in particular.
Liam Fox as Trade Secretary didn't bother signing the trade deals that Liz Truss made, or those she got started working on which are coming down the tracks, but instead spent years banging on about a trade deal with the USA.
One reason I respect her a lot is she's been working on free trade deals and has made a lot of noise about potential trade deals with the CPTPP and others. She's not been talking about a trade deal with the USA.
The reality is that no trade deal is getting through the US Senate anyway. Its not happening, but free trade is good and there's many alternatives to America.
Why they used the plane they did to bring HMQ to Northolt. Including a great comment from her.
There wasn't any extreme weather that day, was there?