Biden should take notice of the polling – politicalbetting.com
There have been number of polls like this on whether Joe Biden should go for a second term and in almost all cases the outcome has been the same – voters don’t want him to run.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Why should he? It was Biden who won back the White House for the Democrats after beating Trump in 2020 after Hillary lost in 2016 to Trump having tied up the Democrat establishment behind her not Biden as VP.
Harris, Biden's VP, polls even worse than Hillary did v Trump. Newsom is a coastal liberal with no connection to the rustbelt swingstates. He might swap Harris with Buttigieg but I see no reason why he would or should not run again, especially given Trump looks likely to be GOP nominee again
FPT, spectacular meteor - bright as full moon - predicted for 3 a.m. 4 hours time. With clear skies in S England I have set an alarm
1-meter asteroid to safely fall over English Channel at 3:00 AM UTC (3/4 AM local time)
Getting the alert out as quickly as I'm able so the most people are able to observe... A just-discovered asteroid temporarily designated Sar2667 is predicted to fall over the English Channel between Rouen, France and Brighton, England. The time of the fall will be 3:00:03 AM UTC, or 3 AM local time for England/4 AM local time for France. It should be around as bright as the full moon, coming at a 45 degree angle down from directly East, and should likely be visible in all levels of light pollution from southern England, Northern France, and western Belgium. Attached is the nominal entry location, and the best area of visibility surrounding it.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
FPT, spectacular meteor - bright as full moon - predicted for 3 a.m. 4 hours time. With clear skies in S England I have set an alarm
1-meter asteroid to safely fall over English Channel at 3:00 AM UTC (3/4 AM local time)
Getting the alert out as quickly as I'm able so the most people are able to observe... A just-discovered asteroid temporarily designated Sar2667 is predicted to fall over the English Channel between Rouen, France and Brighton, England. The time of the fall will be 3:00:03 AM UTC, or 3 AM local time for England/4 AM local time for France. It should be around as bright as the full moon, coming at a 45 degree angle down from directly East, and should likely be visible in all levels of light pollution from southern England, Northern France, and western Belgium. Attached is the nominal entry location, and the best area of visibility surrounding it.
Biden running depends on Trump. Even though his documents issues, though serious, are not of the same level of Trump's, it would be a worthy sacrifice to take himself out of the running if Trump was brought down by that issue.
(I don't think he will be, being charged would only seem likely to bind Republicans more to him).
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
Ultimately, the bonanza starting in the 80s and 90s had to come from somewhere.
Maggie had a curious blindspot about the windfalls of right to buy, privatisation and building society demutualisation. Mostly, she understood the moral dangers of unearned largesse, but one generation had huge amounts chucked their way. And lo, the moral danger bit (the assumption that this is how things should be) has come to pass. And the moral improvement bit (if I am fortunate, that increases my responsibilities towards my fellow men and women) largely hasn't.
But the Conservatives have thoroughly painted themselves into a corner on this one. I don't see how they get out in less than two terms.
The moral hazard is surely not "this is how things should be" but the assumption by that generation that "we worked hard" is true rather than "we got lucky" was true. One of my many uncles is a complete waster in life, got a right to buy 3 bedroom flat in Euston, eked out a living working part time doing odd jobs here and there, inherited from my grandad a few years ago but talk to him and he'll tell you he's worked hard all his life to get his flat in Euston and now that he's looking to rent it out and move out of London he thinks it's extremely unfair that he should pay the 3% surcharge so he's going to do some dodgy deal where he'll have his youngest daughter (my cousin) buy his house (using my grandad's) money in her name. My dad has advised him against it as he thinks it's tax evasion but it's his "hard earned money and he doesn't want the taxman to get it".
If it wasn't so appalling it would be funny. It will be hilarious if he gets done for the 3%, doesn't actually own the property and gets the 80% fine as well.
I suspect we're saying the same thing with different amounts of tact.
I wonder what the next bit of metaphorical furniture chucked on the national fire will be?
Isn't it obvious? Education is going to get gutted. Kids are going to go without to feed the dragon of pensions and healthcare. Early years will suffer most initially as it's not very visible, but eventually primary and secondary funding will be cut substantially to keep the NHS budget growing and keep the triple lock. Over 60s will vote to make themselves richer, this time at the expense of their grandkids rather than their usual target of their kids.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Why should he? It was Biden who won back the White House for the Democrats after beating Trump in 2020 after Hillary lost in 2016 to Trump having tied up the Democrat establishment behind her not Biden as VP.
Harris, Biden's VP, polls even worse than Hillary did v Trump. Newsom is a coastal liberal with no connection to the rustbelt swingstates. He might swap Harris with Buttigieg but I see no reason why he would or should not run again, especially given Trump looks likely to be GOP nominee again
You make a good point. If there were a clear alternative, Mike’s argument would have more force; for now, there isn’t.
I note the header doesn’t go into what would happen were Biden to announce he’s not running. He’d need to leave it late in order to avoid a lengthy lame duck presidency - and that would mean a messy scramble for the nomination.
If Harris were a dead cert for the nomination, it might be different. Sadly, she isn’t.
Is there anyone here - paging Dura Ace - with the flightpath knowledge to say whether that screenshot of the area is genuinely unusual ?
Chinese civvie flightpaths are, along with wine and behaving decorously, something I know fuck all about.
Wine? Didn't you go to Greenwich as an infant snottie to learn how to eat peas politely in the mess, or did that go into the gash before your time?
Aviators usually went to BRNC at Dartmouth because the Royal Navy Flying Training Flight was at Roborough (now "Plymouth City Airport" lol). So I never had the chance to get the rough edges knocked off and be groomed (in more ways than one) for the Admiralty at Greenwich.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
About the same number of under 40s are homeowners as in 2019 when the Tories won their biggest majority since 1987.
If they lose the next election it will be sod all to do with home ownership, it will be to do with being in power for 14 years, Truss' hopeless budget, Boris' partygate, Labour having a more centrist competent leader and falling support for the Brexit deal we have and the high inflation due to the Ukraine war lowering real wages
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
1) The only reason I managed to buy my pokey one-bed flat in a middling part of Edinburgh is because of a huge wad of cash from my parents. It entrenches intergenerational inequality, and I genuinely don't see what the point of getting educated and working hard is for anyone without that financial backing.
2) Immigrants tend to live in multi-generational households and pack in like sardines (at least that is what the Romanians upstairs do). They are also very good at building or repairing houses. Set a great example, tbh.
3) I'd like to apologise to PB for raising my divorce = high house prices theory. Will be on the front of the Daily Mail.
4) All the new developments in rural-ish Scotland have zero public transport and zero cycling provision (even just outside Edinburgh). Which means you have to splash even more on a car (on finance). And the build quality is dreadful - they didn't put any drainage into a new estate up near Inverness, so it just floods from standing water.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
About the same number of under 40s are homeowners as in 2019 when the Tories won their biggest majority since 1987.
If they lose the next election it will be sod all to do with home ownership, it will be to do with being in power for 14 years, Truss' hopeless budget, Boris' partygate, Labour having a more centrist competent leader and falling support for the Brexit deal we have and the high inflation due to the Ukraine war lowering real wages
That's why you'll lose, yes, but homeownership among today's 30-50 year olds is why this incarnation of the Tory party is dusted and won't win again.
A few days ago I suggested that it would be the Tory party that will turn on older voters when they're in opposition out of necessity. You're going to be defending policies you hate in a few years because Kemi and the next generation aren't wedded to the old shibboleths of the triple lock and shovelling money to older voters.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
1) The only reason I managed to buy my pokey one-bed flat in a middling part of Edinburgh is because of a huge wad of cash from my parents. It entrenches intergenerational inequality, and I genuinely don't see what the point of getting educated and working hard is for anyone without that financial backing.
2) Immigrants tend to live in multi-generational households and pack in like sardines (at least that is what the Romanians upstairs do). They are also very good at building or repairing houses. Set a great example, tbh.
3) I'd like to apologise to PB for raising my divorce = high house prices theory. Will be on the front of the Daily Mail.
4) All the new developments in rural-ish Scotland have zero public transport and zero cycling provision (even just outside Edinburgh). Which means you have to splash even more on a car (on finance). And the build quality is dreadful - they didn't put any drainage into a new estate up near Inverness, so it just floods from standing water.
The first point is key.
The social inequality created by runaway housing costs is terrifying.
In my “parent set” back in London, you either inherited or you had some astonishing career to get on the housing ladder at the right time.
I am 44. Even those my age struggled to get on the ladder, the real winners are now 50 and above.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
About the same number of under 40s are homeowners as in 2019 when the Tories won their biggest majority since 1987.
If they lose the next election it will be sod all to do with home ownership, it will be to do with being in power for 14 years, Truss' hopeless budget, Boris' partygate, Labour having a more centrist competent leader and falling support for the Brexit deal we have and the high inflation due to the Ukraine war lowering real wages
That's why you'll lose, yes, but homeownership among today's 30-50 year olds is why this incarnation of the Tory party is dusted and won't win again.
A few days ago I suggested that it would be the Tory party that will turn on older voters when they're in opposition out of necessity. You're going to be defending policies you hate in a few years because Kemi and the next generation aren't wedded to the old shibboleths of the triple lock and shovelling money to older voters.
Utter crap.
If that was true Labour would have won in 2019 by a landslide not the Tories given home ownership amongst under 40s was about the same as now. The median voter is now 50 not 40. Yes morally we may want to get more under 40s owning property but they don't win elections, voters aged 45 and over do!
If the Tories turned on those older voters they would go extinct and be replaced by RefUK as the main party of the right. Voters over 50 would still decide elections however
A house price crash would not fuck the elderly. They have paid their mortgages off and won't really care what their house prices are. Or if they care it won't actually affect their standards of living. However it will fuck the very people you want to help - the working age home owners who still have a mortgage or those just starting to try and get on the property market as banks will be less likely to provide mortgages if they think the collateral is going to fall in value.
I used to think as you do - at least to the extent of wanting house prices to crash but without the bitter, twisted reasoning you exhibit. But other, wiser heads on here have convinced me that a house price stagnation is a much better way for things to progress.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Only really the 1980s when clearly more than 50% owned property, helped by right to buy
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Wait till you hear about population growth from, say, 1940 to 1980!
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
About the same number of under 40s are homeowners as in 2019 when the Tories won their biggest majority since 1987.
If they lose the next election it will be sod all to do with home ownership, it will be to do with being in power for 14 years, Truss' hopeless budget, Boris' partygate, Labour having a more centrist competent leader and falling support for the Brexit deal we have and the high inflation due to the Ukraine war lowering real wages
That's why you'll lose, yes, but homeownership among today's 30-50 year olds is why this incarnation of the Tory party is dusted and won't win again.
A few days ago I suggested that it would be the Tory party that will turn on older voters when they're in opposition out of necessity. You're going to be defending policies you hate in a few years because Kemi and the next generation aren't wedded to the old shibboleths of the triple lock and shovelling money to older voters.
Utter crap.
If that was true Labour would have won in 2019 by a landslide not the Tories given home ownership amongst under 40s was about the same as now. The median voter is now 50 not 40. Yes morally we may want to get more under 40s owning property but they don't win elections, voters aged 45 and over do!
If the Tories turned on those older voters they would go extinct and be replaced by RefUK as the main party of the right. Voters over 50 would still decide elections however
It might actually be a good thing for the Tories to become extinct. They are a malign force, seemingly intent on destroying the country.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
No you are right I don't mean to suggest that. As I said, I think home ownership is a great thing and would want as many people as possible to enjoy it. I agree with Max's sentiments. I was just pointing out that the idea that home ownership is historically the norm as he seems to suggest is false. If you are in your 50s (not you personally) then the chances are your grandparents rented rather than owned their own home.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Down mainly to one T Blair and his open door immigration and no transition controls for free movement from Eastern Europe who most 35 to 45s voted for!
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
No you are right I don't mean to suggest that. As I said, I think home ownership is a great thing and would want as many people as possible to enjoy it. I agree with Max's sentiments. I was just pointing out that the idea that home ownership is historically the norm as he seems to suggest is false. If you are in your 50s (not you personally) then the chances are your grandparents rented rather than owned their own home.
Yes.
One offers hears from boomers that “the kids are drinking avocado frappucinos, whereas in my day we only had fish-paste sandwiches” as if this justifies placing young people into indentured penury.
The idea is of civilisation is to improve standards of living, though. Well, at least since the Renaissance (and especially the Industrial Revolution).
That article posted by Max contains a complaint about a studio apartment, listed at £2,895 pcm, which contains a sink on top of the toilet cistern, a TV you can’t watch, and a sofa cum pull down bed.
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
About the same number of under 40s are homeowners as in 2019 when the Tories won their biggest majority since 1987.
If they lose the next election it will be sod all to do with home ownership, it will be to do with being in power for 14 years, Truss' hopeless budget, Boris' partygate, Labour having a more centrist competent leader and falling support for the Brexit deal we have and the high inflation due to the Ukraine war lowering real wages
That's why you'll lose, yes, but homeownership among today's 30-50 year olds is why this incarnation of the Tory party is dusted and won't win again.
A few days ago I suggested that it would be the Tory party that will turn on older voters when they're in opposition out of necessity. You're going to be defending policies you hate in a few years because Kemi and the next generation aren't wedded to the old shibboleths of the triple lock and shovelling money to older voters.
Utter crap.
If that was true Labour would have won in 2019 by a landslide not the Tories given home ownership amongst under 40s was about the same as now. The median voter is now 50 not 40. Yes morally we may want to get more under 40s owning property but they don't win elections, voters aged 45 and over do!
If the Tories turned on those older voters they would go extinct and be replaced by RefUK as the main party of the right. Voters over 50 would still decide elections however
It might actually be a good thing for the Tories to become extinct. They are a malign force, seemingly intent on destroying the country.
That article posted by Max contains a complaint about a studio apartment, listed at £2,895 pcm, which contains a sink on top of the toilet cistern, a TV you can’t watch, and a sofa cum pull down bed.
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
I suppose one problem here is the vast difference between London/SE and the rest of the country. Out of interest I went and looked for the price of flats to rent in Grantham - just over an hour into Kings Cross by East Coast Mainline. You can get a whole range of decent 2 bedroom flats and apartments for £550 - £650 a month. London and the South East is another world - or at least another country - when it comes to the price of property and rents.
That article posted by Max contains a complaint about a studio apartment, listed at £2,895 pcm, which contains a sink on top of the toilet cistern, a TV you can’t watch, and a sofa cum pull down bed.
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
Those sinks discharge into the cistern, and so save a few pennies on water. Cold comfort.
Bayswater is an odd place. Speculatively built grand squares which were only briefly posh until post WW1 decline and flatting. Still not fully recovered, even after all these years. Famously seedy in the mid 20th century.
That article posted by Max contains a complaint about a studio apartment, listed at £2,895 pcm, which contains a sink on top of the toilet cistern, a TV you can’t watch, and a sofa cum pull down bed.
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
Those sinks discharge into the cistern, and so save a few pennies on water. Cold comfort.
Bayswater is an odd place. Speculatively built grand squares which were only briefly posh until post WW1 decline and flatting. Still not fully recovered, even after all these years. Famously seedy in the mid 20th century.
That article posted by Max contains a complaint about a studio apartment, listed at £2,895 pcm, which contains a sink on top of the toilet cistern, a TV you can’t watch, and a sofa cum pull down bed.
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
I suppose one problem here is the vast difference between London/SE and the rest of the country. Out of interest I went and looked for the price of flats to rent in Grantham - just over an hour into Kings Cross by East Coast Mainline. You can get a whole range of decent 2 bedroom flats and apartments for £550 - £650 a month. London and the South East is another world - or at least another country - when it comes to the price of property and rents.
Hence my thesis that Britain is essentially two economies: the Greater South East, and the Rest.
From memory the population split is something like 40/60.
That article posted by Max contains a complaint about a studio apartment, listed at £2,895 pcm, which contains a sink on top of the toilet cistern, a TV you can’t watch, and a sofa cum pull down bed.
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
Those sinks discharge into the cistern, and so save a few pennies on water. Cold comfort.
Bayswater is an odd place. Speculatively built grand squares which were only briefly posh until post WW1 decline and flatting. Still not fully recovered, even after all these years. Famously seedy in the mid 20th century.
Yes, I’ve never “got” Bayswater. Why did it lose caste almost immediately? I’m weirdly fascinated in the social history of various urban districts.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Back in 1990, the UK spent £8 billion pounds a year on mortgage interest subsidies for a few million borrowers.
More importantly, Bank Rate was 15% in 1990 and 9% or higher for most of the late Eighties. For the last decade it was near-zero and only started rising in the last year. That means people nowadays can use their expected future income to bid up the price of housing in a way that would have been very costly in 1990.
If you purged ten million people from the UK, probably prices would crash, but there'd also be a bunch of other consequences: repopulating the NHS alone would be a multi-year project, commandeering resources and shrinking the private sector.
CRIDOVNI which is referred to in the second article is the Commission for the Receipt and Investigation of UFO Reports, part of the airforce, created in 1979.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Are you sure?
I suspect there are a whole raft of issues. My own view is among others the burgeoning buy to let market reduces stock and drives up prices.
Anyway, been there, done that, don't intend to ever do it again.
Well worth the read, it's absolutely brilliant and accurate to my experiences of renting when I was in my 20s and of what I hear from the juniors in my team, extremely accurate to today.
The government hasn't been listening for far, far too long. Labour oversaw the explosion of the cowboy buy to let landlord and the Tories haven't done nearly enough to force them out of the sector and fund local authorities to build new social rental properties.
The reason my generation are not becoming conservative is because of this, the government hasn't listened to us about housing for 10+ years. My parents bought a 4 bedroom detached house in swanky (even then) suburb for under £150k and they bought it at a 3.5x income multiple with no help from my grandparents. To do that today for the same house, even with a £100k+ household income, people would need over 10x on the income multiple and a £200k deposit.
Every single politician should read the article, because it rings true for everyone who has rented in London in the last 15 years and it's getting worse. We need more affordable rents, more houses for sale and to block foreign ownership of property as other major cities do across the world.
It's a great article. Shocking though.
I don't disagree with your comment: 'Labour oversaw the explosion of the cowboy buy to let landlord and the Tories haven't done nearly enough to force them out of the sector and fund local authorities to build new social rental properties' ...but it's a sad indictment of New Labour.
It's an appalling article; a fairy tale from a man who can't even write self-consistent fairy tales.
But then it's from Joel Golby, who has spent the last x years writing outrage bot clickbait from bits and pieces he's scraped off Zoopla, so I would expect him to be out of touch.
It wouldn't surprise me if he has happily lived in a high quality rented property, in a good relationship with his landlord, throughout. But he knows his audience wants red meat so he writes it.
For example:
The landlord started the renovation works while you were all still on the end of your contract
The tenant has full possession until the end of the contract, to the extent of ability to change the locks. A landlord doing works does it by consent, or because it is in the contract the tenant signed. Usually to get early access requires crossing the tenant's palm with silver.
He's completely ignorant of the concept of tenantlike behaviour, which is absolutely basic when it comes to simple repairs etc. See his radiator rant.
(where is the regulation on the rental market, by the way? Why is there not like, one atom of regulation?
Does this guy have a drug habit to ask a question like that?
You haven’t been to a house party in a squat and taken ketamine for ages, for weeks. You’re an upstanding, decent member of society. So why does it feel like the city doesn’t want you here?
Oh, he does. Explains a lot, perhaps.
(In case anybody wants to have a pop, I rented six different places in London between 2000 and 2010, ranging from an 8x7 room in Walthamstow to a flat in Grove Park, Chiswick. Since then the market has been heavily further regulated.)
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Are you sure?
I suspect there are a whole raft of issues. My own view is among others the burgeoning buy to let market reduces stock and drives up prices.
Anyway, been there, done that, don't intend to ever do it again.
I posted upthread why house prices have risen. Neither immigration nor buy-to-let are the key reasons.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Are you sure?
I suspect there are a whole raft of issues. My own view is among others the burgeoning buy to let market reduces stock and drives up prices.
Anyway, been there, done that, don't intend to ever do it again.
I posted upthread why house prices have risen. Neither immigration nor buy-to-let are the key reasons.
It was UFOs, wasn't it? Destroying us by pricing us out of our homes, the insidious bastards!
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
Are you sure?
I suspect there are a whole raft of issues. My own view is among others the burgeoning buy to let market reduces stock and drives up prices.
Anyway, been there, done that, don't intend to ever do it again.
I posted upthread why house prices have risen. Neither immigration nor buy-to-let are the key reasons.
The buy to let market is not burgeoning afaik. The PRS has been shrinking for a number of years (see the annual English Housing Survey). Scotland is at the "most shrunk" end (have not checked W, NI as I am not aware they publish figures), where it has shrunk by around 15% since 2015-16, according to Scottish Government figures.
England has shrunk by less, with a slight recent uptick.
*Build* to let may be increasing, due to institutional investors.
Rezone London’s Zones 2 to 4 as “up to six floors”, excluding conservation areas and subject to appropriate design guidance.
Do the same in the analogous parts of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds.
Job done.
Agree that there is a need for increased capacity, given London's predicted growth.
My preference would be to develop some of the Greenbelt scrubland, plus a couple of new high density areas (think Barbican style but perhaps on a couple of the extensive modern low-rise estates) - rather than smear it all over all of zones 2-4.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Almost everyone has a house whether it's rented or not. Swiss home ownership rates are much lower than Romanian rates; it wouldn't be obscene to transform Romania into Switzerland, and this hints that owning a house doesn't make you a lord of the manor.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
Rezone London’s Zones 2 to 4 as “up to six floors”, excluding conservation areas and subject to appropriate design guidance.
Do the same in the analogous parts of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds.
Job done.
Agree that there is a need for increased capacity, given London's predicted growth.
My preference would be to develop some of the Greenbelt scrubland, plus a couple of new high density areas (think Barbican style but perhaps on a couple of the extensive modern low-rise estates) - rather than smear it all over all of zones 2-4.
That would allow for a generation.
Plus market reforms, as I have argued previously.
We are already essentially doing the high density areas (think Stratford, Nine Elms etc). They are expensive to build and largely hideous.
I’m mostly fine with scrubland, but I fear it will be used as an excuse by developers to simply sprawl in the unsustainable we see much development out of London.
I believe in a straight land tax rather than a capital gains tax on primary residence which I think is actually regressive in effect.
As for Zone 2-4, what’s your issue? See my note about excluding conservation areas.
“The day after leaving the White House, Kushner created a company that he transformed months later into a private equity firm with $2 billion from a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.” https://twitter.com/MrDanZak/status/1624776699253514246
Our politicians are comparative amateurs at this lark.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Almost everyone has a house whether it's rented or not. Swiss home ownership rates are much lower than Romanian rates; it wouldn't be obscene to transform Romania into Switzerland, and this hints that owning a house doesn't make you a lord of the manor.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
Given the relatively low level of mortgages, and the recent mini-boom in house prices before the current very small correction, I think the number under threat from a bigger correction in house prices is relatively small.
If they went down by 20%, that is only going to take prices back to 2020 levels.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Almost everyone has a house whether it's rented or not. Swiss home ownership rates are much lower than Romanian rates; it wouldn't be obscene to transform Romania into Switzerland, and this hints that owning a house doesn't make you a lord of the manor.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
Given the relatively low level of mortgages, and the recent mini-boom in house prices before the current very small correction, I think the number under threat from a bigger correction in house prices is relatively small.
If they went down by 20%, that is only going to take prices back to 2020 levels.
That's true, but two things to add are first, that it tends to have a concentrated effect in certain kinds of household - young family-formers who got mortgages recently, and who may be most prone to move around in normal times for jobs and for more space - and second, that falls of 20% are an event to expect with some reasonable probability when rates rise like this. In Sweden, for instance, prices fell almost 15% in nine months and are still falling; some in Germany expect the same over nine months; the UK drop by contrast has been 6% over six months.
There are all sorts of more dynamic problems when prices fall - most importantly, that people don't want to buy an asset whose value is falling! So the buyer side dries up. Then people don't want to sell an asset when they think some of the price fall is induced by low liquidity! But this has nothing to do with mortgages except that they make the profit and loss from these dynamics more leveraged and thus larger.
Rezone London’s Zones 2 to 4 as “up to six floors”, excluding conservation areas and subject to appropriate design guidance.
Do the same in the analogous parts of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds.
Job done.
Agree that there is a need for increased capacity, given London's predicted growth.
My preference would be to develop some of the Greenbelt scrubland, plus a couple of new high density areas (think Barbican style but perhaps on a couple of the extensive modern low-rise estates) - rather than smear it all over all of zones 2-4.
That would allow for a generation.
Plus market reforms, as I have argued previously.
We are already essentially doing the high density areas (think Stratford, Nine Elms etc). They are expensive to build and largely hideous.
I’m mostly fine with scrubland, but I fear it will be used as an excuse by developers to simply sprawl in the unsustainable we see much development out of London.
I believe in a straight land tax rather than a capital gains tax on primary residence which I think is actually regressive in effect.
As for Zone 2-4, what’s your issue? See my note about excluding conservation areas.
I'm not convinced that modern 4-6 story is so good - depending on how it is used, and on what scale. Though that is within the height range for timber frame. IMO it still remains to be seen whether we like these in the UK for families.
An example for something I don't like is the Olympic Park area, which to me feels like 1970s Moscow with huge blocks with too many people for human scale to know, for example, most of the people who use your courtyard. I took a tour of it, but haven't been back for a couple of years.
4-6 story would work better as a row of joined blocks of 10-20 apartments, rather than long corridors like an institution. Or various mixes were experimented with in the 1950s and 60s, before it went off the rails - some interesting stuff was done in Camden in the 1960s/1970s, for example, and Roehampton.
I prefer the high tower and more space model used in the Barbican, which is more pleasant and gives a density of 228 people per acre (=570 people per hectare), for a large development. You can call that roughly 1.x people per bedroom. Normal measures are dwellings per Ha, bedrooms per Ha, or habitable rooms per Ha.
Hyde Park Estate is an interesting mix of high and lower density, which I think works as a neighbourhood.
But typical occupancy of a terraced or older house is now around of half of what it was a century ago - we all have more space per person.
A highish Prescott density (defined when he was Deputy PM, for say estates within one mile of town centre) is around 30 dwellings per Ha, and I think goes up to 40.
I think recapturing of public space for community use from motor vehicles - eg LTNs - is a great positive and a sign of hope; we need to see where that goes. That requires a swing back to public transport to work widely. Potentially that could recover a lot of space in London especially, which is a low density city.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Almost everyone has a house whether it's rented or not. Swiss home ownership rates are much lower than Romanian rates; it wouldn't be obscene to transform Romania into Switzerland, and this hints that owning a house doesn't make you a lord of the manor.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
Given the relatively low level of mortgages, and the recent mini-boom in house prices before the current very small correction, I think the number under threat from a bigger correction in house prices is relatively small.
If they went down by 20%, that is only going to take prices back to 2020 levels.
That's true, but two things to add are first, that it tends to have a concentrated effect in certain kinds of household - young family-formers who got mortgages recently, and who may be most prone to move around in normal times for jobs and for more space - and second, that falls of 20% are an event to expect with some reasonable probability when rates rise like this. In Sweden, for instance, prices fell almost 15% in nine months and are still falling; some in Germany expect the same over nine months; the UK drop by contrast has been 6% over six months.
Yep. One thing that may be different here is that empty homes are punished very heavily, so we have low slack in the market. In my area you can end up paying 2x or 3x Council Tax on an empty property.
Example from total numbers. UK has the same population as France within 1%.
France has 37 million dwellings; UK has 28-29 million.
Well worth the read, it's absolutely brilliant and accurate to my experiences of renting when I was in my 20s and of what I hear from the juniors in my team, extremely accurate to today.
The government hasn't been listening for far, far too long. Labour oversaw the explosion of the cowboy buy to let landlord and the Tories haven't done nearly enough to force them out of the sector and fund local authorities to build new social rental properties.
The reason my generation are not becoming conservative is because of this, the government hasn't listened to us about housing for 10+ years. My parents bought a 4 bedroom detached house in swanky (even then) suburb for under £150k and they bought it at a 3.5x income multiple with no help from my grandparents. To do that today for the same house, even with a £100k+ household income, people would need over 10x on the income multiple and a £200k deposit.
Every single politician should read the article, because it rings true for everyone who has rented in London in the last 15 years and it's getting worse. We need more affordable rents, more houses for sale and to block foreign ownership of property as other major cities do across the world.
It's a great article. Shocking though.
I don't disagree with your comment: 'Labour oversaw the explosion of the cowboy buy to let landlord and the Tories haven't done nearly enough to force them out of the sector and fund local authorities to build new social rental properties' ...but it's a sad indictment of New Labour.
It's an appalling article; a fairy tale from a clueless goon who can't even write self-consistent fairy tales.
But then it's from Joel Golby, who has spent the last x years writing outrage bot clickbait from bits and pieces he's scraped off Zoopla, so I would expect him to be entirely out of touch with anything except his own rather manufactured offence.
It wouldn't surprise me if he has happily lived in a high quality rented property, in a good relationship with his landlord, throughout. But he knows his audience wants red meat so he writes it.
For example:
The landlord started the renovation works while you were all still on the end of your contract
The tenant has full possession until the end of the contract, to the extent of ability to change the locks. A landlord doing works does it by consent, or because it is in the contract the tenant signed. Usually to get early access requires crossing the tenant's palm with silver.
He's completely ignorant of the concept of tenantlike behaviour, which is absolutely basic when it comes to simple repairs etc. See his radiator rant.
(where is the regulation on the rental market, by the way? Why is there not like, one atom of regulation?
Does this guy have a drug habit to ask a question like that?
You haven’t been to a house party in a squat and taken ketamine for ages, for weeks. You’re an upstanding, decent member of society. So why does it feel like the city doesn’t want you here?
Oh, he does. Explains a lot, perhaps.
(In case anybody wants to have a pop, I rented six different places in London between 2000 and 2010, ranging from an 8x7 room in Walthamstow to a flat in Grove Park, Chiswick.)
It’s not really my experience, either. I rented the same time as you, but only five different places
But one imagines we are a slightly different demographic.
I do know one 25 year old who would completely identify with this article. The issues are at the lower end of the market.
I tend to get rather visceral about such attitudes taking a projection from 1-2% of properties being offered for rent and projecting that onto the rest.
I rented in a mix of high and low in the market, but I *never* went via an agent:
Room in shared flat, Clapham. Room in shared house, Walthamstow. 1 bed flat, nr Finsbury Square. Studio flat in roof of terraced house: South Hampstead / Gospel Oak. 1 bed flat, Grove Park nr Chiswick House. Room in shared flat, Central Chiswick.
The official “Highlights” of the Super Bowl, seems to be every actual play of the whole thing. So the game really only lasted 17 minutes, despite taking three-and-a-half hours from start to finish.
There is hope. Murdoch’s tabloids are struggling badly in the online environment.
’News Corp's job cuts cast a shadow over the future of its newspapers’
News Corporation is cutting its staff by 5% globally… after its news media division recorded a second-quarter earnings decline of 47%.
“Eternal” factors… include the performance of the tabloid newspapers that have played a pivotal role in the development of the organisation. It casts a large shadow over the organisation’s future direction and structure.
It is reasonable to suppose that his attachment to newspapers – one colleague has referred to them as his “favourite toys” – is grounded in his experience that they give him power.
He has used that power to wring concessions out of prime ministers to the benefit of his businesses, and used the profits those concessions engendered to accumulate more power.
Perhaps the most egregious example was Margaret Thatcher’s decision as Britain’s prime minister to bypass the country’s Monopolies and Mergers Commission and approve his takeover of The Times and Sunday Times in 1981, after Murdoch’s mass-circulation Sun newspaper had supported her to the hilt in the election of 1979.
The official “Highlights” of the Super Bowl, seems to be every actual play of the whole thing. So the game really only lasted 17 minutes, despite taking three-and-a-half hours from start to finish.
“ A quick summary of why all these UFOs are popping up now.
Call it Science Sunday… or Superbowl Science Sunday.
In spatial science (in this case radar/satellite data), we use techniques to filter out noise so we can identify objects in space (the abstract space, not outer space).
Think of it like trying to find a tennis ball on the beach using a 3d scan of the beach read as lines of text.
You know how big the tennis ball is, so you take all the data from the beach and tell the computer to find a round object that is the approximate size of a tennis ball.
It would take a lot longer to find the tennis ball if every small object on the beach had to be reviewed one-by-one. So we tell the computer to ignore everything that doesn’t look like a tennis ball.
Same goes with detecting aircraft.
We know the range of sizes aircraft typically are, and we know they move across space, so we filter out tiny objects that aren't large enough to be typical aircraft and/or are stationary so we can readily find objects that fit the parameters we set for things like war/spy planes/drones/etc.
When the balloon thing happened, NORAD reduced the filter sensitivity to allow smaller objects to pass through.
Now, we're picking up these small, slow-moving objects that had been filtered out before.
Back to the beach analogy: we essentially turned off the filter and now we’re picking up sea shells, coins and lost rings.
What the objects are and what nation/entity they're from has not been announced. They are simply unidentified flying objects (UFOs) at this point.
These weren’t necessarily launched or sent recently, we just never looked for them. Now we are.
There is hope. Murdoch’s tabloids are struggling badly in the online environment.
’News Corp's job cuts cast a shadow over the future of its newspapers’
News Corporation is cutting its staff by 5% globally… after its news media division recorded a second-quarter earnings decline of 47%.
“Eternal” factors… include the performance of the tabloid newspapers that have played a pivotal role in the development of the organisation. It casts a large shadow over the organisation’s future direction and structure.
It is reasonable to suppose that his attachment to newspapers – one colleague has referred to them as his “favourite toys” – is grounded in his experience that they give him power.
He has used that power to wring concessions out of prime ministers to the benefit of his businesses, and used the profits those concessions engendered to accumulate more power.
Perhaps the most egregious example was Margaret Thatcher’s decision as Britain’s prime minister to bypass the country’s Monopolies and Mergers Commission and approve his takeover of The Times and Sunday Times in 1981, after Murdoch’s mass-circulation Sun newspaper had supported her to the hilt in the election of 1979.
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
“ A quick summary of why all these UFOs are popping up now.
Call it Science Sunday… or Superbowl Science Sunday.
In spatial science (in this case radar/satellite data), we use techniques to filter out noise so we can identify objects in space (the abstract space, not outer space).
Think of it like trying to find a tennis ball on the beach using a 3d scan of the beach read as lines of text.
You know how big the tennis ball is, so you take all the data from the beach and tell the computer to find a round object that is the approximate size of a tennis ball.
It would take a lot longer to find the tennis ball if every small object on the beach had to be reviewed one-by-one. So we tell the computer to ignore everything that doesn’t look like a tennis ball.
Same goes with detecting aircraft.
We know the range of sizes aircraft typically are, and we know they move across space, so we filter out tiny objects that aren't large enough to be typical aircraft and/or are stationary so we can readily find objects that fit the parameters we set for things like war/spy planes/drones/etc.
When the balloon thing happened, NORAD reduced the filter sensitivity to allow smaller objects to pass through.
Now, we're picking up these small, slow-moving objects that had been filtered out before.
Back to the beach analogy: we essentially turned off the filter and now we’re picking up sea shells, coins and lost rings.
What the objects are and what nation/entity they're from has not been announced. They are simply unidentified flying objects (UFOs) at this point.
These weren’t necessarily launched or sent recently, we just never looked for them. Now we are.
The official “Highlights” of the Super Bowl, seems to be every actual play of the whole thing. So the game really only lasted 17 minutes, despite taking three-and-a-half hours from start to finish.
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
Well that’s a Darwin Award write-up ready to go. But who the hell was the machine operator, who presumably knew that you don’t turn the damn thing on with any metal near it?
Well that’s a Darwin Award write-up ready to go. But who the hell was the machine operator, who presumably knew that you don’t turn the damn thing on with any metal near it?
Well that’s a Darwin Award write-up ready to go. But who the hell was the machine operator, who presumably knew that you don’t turn the damn thing on with any metal near it?
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
Well that’s a Darwin Award write-up ready to go. But who the hell was the machine operator, who presumably knew that you don’t turn the damn thing on with any metal near it?
Concealed weapon perhaps?
Handgun tucked into his waistband.
What an imbecile.
He sounds like the only lawyer in creation stupider than that NIMBY loving barrister who got muddled between metres and hectares on Clarkson’s Farm.
The official “Highlights” of the Super Bowl, seems to be every actual play of the whole thing. So the game really only lasted 17 minutes, despite taking three-and-a-half hours from start to finish.
Comments
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
*Hides whisky under bed*
Harris, Biden's VP, polls even worse than Hillary did v Trump. Newsom is a coastal liberal with no connection to the rustbelt swingstates. He might swap Harris with Buttigieg but I see no reason why he would or should not run again, especially given Trump looks likely to be GOP nominee again
1-meter asteroid to safely fall over English Channel at 3:00 AM UTC (3/4 AM local time)
Getting the alert out as quickly as I'm able so the most people are able to observe... A just-discovered asteroid temporarily designated Sar2667 is predicted to fall over the English Channel between Rouen, France and Brighton, England. The time of the fall will be 3:00:03 AM UTC, or 3 AM local time for England/4 AM local time for France. It should be around as bright as the full moon, coming at a 45 degree angle down from directly East, and should likely be visible in all levels of light pollution from southern England, Northern France, and western Belgium. Attached is the nominal entry location, and the best area of visibility surrounding it.
Source:
[https://groups.io/g/mpml/topic/96923899#38386](https://groups.io/g/mpml/topic/96923899#38386)
[https://www.projectpluto.com/neocp2/mpecs/Sar2667.htm](https://www.projectpluto.com/neocp2/mpecs/Sar2667.htm)
https://preview.redd.it/6ois9gch4uha1.png?width=1493&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=c1119b4a1f2a19b39ed8ca41f13b69d2b802a3b2
Goodnight all.
Auger nowt good.
All in keeping with the times.
All is well.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
(I don't think he will be, being charged would only seem likely to bind Republicans more to him).
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-reports/2022/05/09/how-many-people-parents-help-first-home-deposit
If there were a clear alternative, Mike’s argument would have more force; for now, there isn’t.
I note the header doesn’t go into what would happen were Biden to announce he’s not running. He’d need to leave it late in order to avoid a lengthy lame duck presidency - and that would mean a messy scramble for the nomination.
If Harris were a dead cert for the nomination, it might be different. Sadly, she isn’t.
If they lose the next election it will be sod all to do with home ownership, it will be to do with being in power for 14 years, Truss' hopeless budget, Boris' partygate, Labour having a more centrist competent leader and falling support for the Brexit deal we have and the high inflation due to the Ukraine war lowering real wages
Academic says remark that Japanese tradition of self-evisceration is ‘the only solution’ to growing state burden was taken out of context"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/12/old-people-should-embrace-mass-suicide-says-yale-professor/
2) Immigrants tend to live in multi-generational households and pack in like sardines (at least that is what the Romanians upstairs do). They are also very good at building or repairing houses. Set a great example, tbh.
3) I'd like to apologise to PB for raising my divorce = high house prices theory. Will be on the front of the Daily Mail.
4) All the new developments in rural-ish Scotland have zero public transport and zero cycling provision (even just outside Edinburgh). Which means you have to splash even more on a car (on finance). And the build quality is dreadful - they didn't put any drainage into a new estate up near Inverness, so it just floods from standing water.
Rezone London’s Zones 2 to 4 as “up to six floors”, excluding conservation areas and subject to appropriate design guidance.
Do the same in the analogous parts of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds.
Job done.
I reckon he should run in 2024, replace Biden.
On the other hand, he seems to be speaking for up to 30% of the population, and indeed the set that currently have the whip hand.
A few days ago I suggested that it would be the Tory party that will turn on older voters when they're in opposition out of necessity. You're going to be defending policies you hate in a few years because Kemi and the next generation aren't wedded to the old shibboleths of the triple lock and shovelling money to older voters.
The social inequality created by runaway housing costs is terrifying.
In my “parent set” back in London, you either inherited or you had some astonishing career to get on the housing ladder at the right time.
I am 44. Even those my age struggled to get on the ladder, the real winners are now 50 and above.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
The polarization in the USA means there are very few real swing voters .
Those Dems who don’t want Biden to stand aren’t suddenly going to turn into Rep voters .
If that was true Labour would have won in 2019 by a landslide not the Tories given home ownership amongst under 40s was about the same as now. The median voter is now 50 not 40. Yes morally we may want to get more under 40s owning property but they don't win elections, voters aged 45 and over do!
If the Tories turned on those older voters they would go extinct and be replaced by RefUK as the main party of the right. Voters over 50 would still decide elections however
I used to think as you do - at least to the extent of wanting house prices to crash but without the bitter, twisted reasoning you exhibit. But other, wiser heads on here have convinced me that a house price stagnation is a much better way for things to progress.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
One offers hears from boomers that “the kids are drinking avocado frappucinos, whereas in my day we only had fish-paste sandwiches” as if this justifies placing young people into indentured penury.
The idea is of civilisation is to improve standards of living, though. Well, at least since the Renaissance (and especially the Industrial Revolution).
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/57996472/?weekly_featured=1&utm_content=featured_listing&search_identifier=7f3717f9bc05ac0a821f40c50642e1c5
Bayswater is an odd place. Speculatively built grand squares which were only briefly posh until post WW1 decline and flatting. Still not fully recovered, even after all these years. Famously seedy in the mid 20th century.
From memory the population split is something like 40/60.
I’m weirdly fascinated in the social history of various urban districts.
More importantly, Bank Rate was 15% in 1990 and 9% or higher for most of the late Eighties. For the last decade it was near-zero and only started rising in the last year. That means people nowadays can use their expected future income to bid up the price of housing in a way that would have been very costly in 1990.
If you purged ten million people from the UK, probably prices would crash, but there'd also be a bunch of other consequences: repopulating the NHS alone would be a multi-year project, commandeering resources and shrinking the private sector.
https://www.eltelegrafo.com/2023/02/ovni-en-almiron-sorpresa-por-luces-en-el-cielo/
https://www.eltelegrafo.com/2023/02/comision-de-la-fuerza-aerea-visitara-zona-de-avistamiento-de-ovni-en-almiron/
CRIDOVNI which is referred to in the second article is the Commission for the Receipt and Investigation of UFO Reports, part of the airforce, created in 1979.
I suspect there are a whole raft of issues. My own view is among others the burgeoning buy to let market reduces stock and drives up prices.
Anyway, been there, done that, don't intend to ever do it again.
FPT: It's an appalling article; a fairy tale from a man who can't even write self-consistent fairy tales.
But then it's from Joel Golby, who has spent the last x years writing outrage bot clickbait from bits and pieces he's scraped off Zoopla, so I would expect him to be out of touch.
It wouldn't surprise me if he has happily lived in a high quality rented property, in a good relationship with his landlord, throughout. But he knows his audience wants red meat so he writes it.
For example:
The landlord started the renovation works while you were all still on the end of your contract
The tenant has full possession until the end of the contract, to the extent of ability to change the locks. A landlord doing works does it by consent, or because it is in the contract the tenant signed. Usually to get early access requires crossing the tenant's palm with silver.
He's completely ignorant of the concept of tenantlike behaviour, which is absolutely basic when it comes to simple repairs etc. See his radiator rant.
(where is the regulation on the rental market, by the way? Why is there not like, one atom of regulation?
Does this guy have a drug habit to ask a question like that?
You haven’t been to a house party in a squat and taken ketamine for ages, for weeks. You’re an upstanding, decent member of society. So why does it feel like the city doesn’t want you here?
Oh, he does. Explains a lot, perhaps.
(In case anybody wants to have a pop, I rented six different places in London between 2000 and 2010, ranging from an 8x7 room in Walthamstow to a flat in Grove Park, Chiswick. Since then the market has been heavily further regulated.)
England has shrunk by less, with a slight recent uptick.
*Build* to let may be increasing, due to institutional investors.
My preference would be to develop some of the Greenbelt scrubland, plus a couple of new high density areas (think Barbican style but perhaps on a couple of the extensive modern low-rise estates) - rather than smear it all over all of zones 2-4.
That would allow for a generation.
Plus market reforms, as I have argued previously.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
After helping prince’s rise, Trump and Kushner benefit from Saudi funds
An investment fund overseen by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is backing ventures that profit the former president and his senior adviser, raising questions of conflict
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/12/after-helping-princes-rise-trump-kushner-benefit-saudi-funds/
I’m mostly fine with scrubland, but I fear it will be used as an excuse by developers to simply sprawl in the unsustainable we see much development out of London.
I believe in a straight land tax rather than a capital gains tax on primary residence which I think is actually regressive in effect.
As for Zone 2-4, what’s your issue? See my note about excluding conservation areas.
https://twitter.com/MrDanZak/status/1624776699253514246
Our politicians are comparative amateurs at this lark.
Firm won £25.8m PPE contract after Greg Hands approached by Tory activist
Exclusive: New Tory chair referred Luxe Lifestyle in April 2020 despite it apparently having no history of supplying PPE
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/12/firm-won-ppe-contract-greg-hands-approached-by-tory-activist-luxe-lifestyle
If they went down by 20%, that is only going to take prices back to 2020 levels.
https://twitter.com/matthewsyed/status/1624749778494976000
An example for something I don't like is the Olympic Park area, which to me feels like 1970s Moscow with huge blocks with too many people for human scale to know, for example, most of the people who use your courtyard. I took a tour of it, but haven't been back for a couple of years.
4-6 story would work better as a row of joined blocks of 10-20 apartments, rather than long corridors like an institution. Or various mixes were experimented with in the 1950s and 60s, before it went off the rails - some interesting stuff was done in Camden in the 1960s/1970s, for example, and Roehampton.
I prefer the high tower and more space model used in the Barbican, which is more pleasant and gives a density of 228 people per acre (=570 people per hectare), for a large development. You can call that roughly 1.x people per bedroom. Normal measures are dwellings per Ha, bedrooms per Ha, or habitable rooms per Ha.
Hyde Park Estate is an interesting mix of high and lower density, which I think works as a neighbourhood.
But typical occupancy of a terraced or older house is now around of half of what it was a century ago - we all have more space per person.
A highish Prescott density (defined when he was Deputy PM, for say estates within one mile of town centre) is around 30 dwellings per Ha, and I think goes up to 40.
I think recapturing of public space for community use from motor vehicles - eg LTNs - is a great positive and a sign of hope; we need to see where that goes. That requires a swing back to public transport to work widely. Potentially that could recover a lot of space in London especially, which is a low density city.
""I'm not going to categorize them as balloons. We're calling them objects for a reason."
Example from total numbers. UK has the same population as France within 1%.
France has 37 million dwellings; UK has 28-29 million.
I rented in a mix of high and low in the market, but I *never* went via an agent:
Room in shared flat, Clapham.
Room in shared house, Walthamstow.
1 bed flat, nr Finsbury Square.
Studio flat in roof of terraced house: South Hampstead / Gospel Oak.
1 bed flat, Grove Park nr Chiswick House.
Room in shared flat, Central Chiswick.
Edit : someone caught it on camera https://youtu.be/QOvJrE01ENA
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BWkt79xkd00
Man shot dead by own gun after powerful MRI scanner magnet rips weapon from belt
https://twitter.com/KeneAkers/status/1624441156196237312
’News Corp's job cuts cast a shadow over the future of its newspapers’
News Corporation is cutting its staff by 5% globally… after its news media division recorded a second-quarter earnings decline of 47%.
“Eternal” factors… include the performance of the tabloid newspapers that have played a pivotal role in the development of the organisation. It casts a large shadow over the organisation’s future direction and structure.
It is reasonable to suppose that his attachment to newspapers – one colleague has referred to them as his “favourite toys” – is grounded in his experience that they give him power.
He has used that power to wring concessions out of prime ministers to the benefit of his businesses, and used the profits those concessions engendered to accumulate more power.
Perhaps the most egregious example was Margaret Thatcher’s decision as Britain’s prime minister to bypass the country’s Monopolies and Mergers Commission and approve his takeover of The Times and Sunday Times in 1981, after Murdoch’s mass-circulation Sun newspaper had supported her to the hilt in the election of 1979.
https://theconversation.com/news-corps-job-cuts-cast-a-shadow-over-the-future-of-its-newspapers-199762
Call it Science Sunday… or Superbowl Science Sunday.
In spatial science (in this case radar/satellite data), we use techniques to filter out noise so we can identify objects in space (the abstract space, not outer space).
Think of it like trying to find a tennis ball on the beach using a 3d scan of the beach read as lines of text.
You know how big the tennis ball is, so you take all the data from the beach and tell the computer to find a round object that is the approximate size of a tennis ball.
It would take a lot longer to find the tennis ball if every small object on the beach had to be reviewed one-by-one. So we tell the computer to ignore everything that doesn’t look like a tennis ball.
Same goes with detecting aircraft.
We know the range of sizes aircraft typically are, and we know they move across space, so we filter out tiny objects that aren't large enough to be typical aircraft and/or are stationary so we can readily find objects that fit the parameters we set for things like war/spy planes/drones/etc.
When the balloon thing happened, NORAD reduced the filter sensitivity to allow smaller objects to pass through.
Now, we're picking up these small, slow-moving objects that had been filtered out before.
Back to the beach analogy: we essentially turned off the filter and now we’re picking up sea shells, coins and lost rings.
What the objects are and what nation/entity they're from has not been announced. They are simply unidentified flying objects (UFOs) at this point.
These weren’t necessarily launched or sent recently, we just never looked for them. Now we are.
And we’re finding there are quite a few of them there.”
https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1624810262971793412
Murdoch is a malign presence but these people will mostly be back office staff.
1. The sheer joy of waking up, coming in to the kitchen, and typing "UFO" into a news aggregator!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lake-huron-object-michigan-ufo-pentagon-b2280979.html
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Must be a bloody boring sport.
1m is tiny.
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
He sounds like the only lawyer in creation stupider than that NIMBY loving barrister who got muddled between metres and hectares on Clarkson’s Farm.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d7a6c5dc-ab08-11ed-a737-a480e119ff3e?shareToken=4762065a66e1e4c52a180ed21a4fc7ef
You have to think of it as a combination of chess and a more kinetic form of rugby.