Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Silly question really, but I'd be interested to know what percentage of people typically vote 1 Con, 1 Lab, 1 LD in 3 member wards where those parties are standing.
My ward has now been merged into another (the home of Charterhouse school and in parts extremely posh) and has become a 3-member ward, so I'll potentially be able to tell you on Friday (I forget what the rule is about what you can say about the count - can you give guesstimates like that?). There are 3 Tory candidates and one each from LD, Lab (me) and Green. My guess is that the number of voters who mix votes as you say will be tiny, but there are always some votes that raise eyebrows. What's more common is not using all your votes - maybe because you know the reputation of one candidate but have never heard of the others.
As long as they don't post pictures people seem able to say 'It's looking good/bad' to journalists.
Voters can be odd - enough people only vote once in multi ward elections (despite the number being on the ballot) that I suspect some assume only one vote is allowed (obviously others like you suggest do so intentionally), whilst others go the opposite route and feel the need to use up all their votes even if it might conceivably hurt the party they actually support.
Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Did Google Translate mean the end of jobs in translation, interpretation and foreign language teaching? Or did it just open up foreign texts to those of us who lack those skills and who could not afford to buy them?
SS2 said: "Given MOE, increase of +1% is no increase at all, just as a drop of -1% would be no real decrease.
Whereas given MOE, an increase of +5% really IS an increase; though perhaps not as much as that, but also possibly a bit more."
Depends on the confidence interval chosen, and the number polled. (In political polls, 95% and about 1,000 are common.)
(For the record: I believe that your thinking is clearer if you use the latest poll results to adjust your personal probabilities, so you might, for example, make a small adjustment for 1% change, and a little larger one for a 5 percent change. But I don't know enough about modern Bayesian thinking to go further than that.)
Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Did Google Translate mean the end of jobs in translation, interpretation and foreign language teaching? Or did it just open up foreign texts to those of us who lack those skills and who could not afford to buy them?
No, because Google Translate is good but not good enough. It’s an improving and marvellous tool for travelers tho, and probably is beginning to eat into translation jobs at the lower end, at this point
The next iteration of machine translation combined with voice cloning and GPTs in general will be scarily good. If you want they will take your words in English and make them sound instantaneously BETTER in Spanish, Mandarin, Punjab
Honestly, my friend was completely fatalistic. “It’s over” he said. And this has been his professional field for 30 years
Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
I'd expect the Conservatives to reach 30% in NEV. Simply because Reform won't translate its poll rating into votes on the ground.
I tend to agree with this. Tories to get between 30% and 33% is my forecast.
I suspect they'll be at the low-end of that range, with Labour up four or five points on 2019 (NEV 34-35). However, I expect the Conservatives to underperform due to tactical voting.
Btw, liberated from my 3 year project I had dinner with a pal tonight. He’s a senior dude in English teaching to Thais, translation, interpreting etc. He expects his industry to be transformed in 5 years by AI, and 90% of human jobs will go within 10. He also expects Babel fish within 5-10 years: automatic immediate in-ear translation….
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
Did Google Translate mean the end of jobs in translation, interpretation and foreign language teaching? Or did it just open up foreign texts to those of us who lack those skills and who could not afford to buy them?
No, because Google Translate is good but not good enough. It’s an improving and marvellous tool for travelers tho, and probably is beginning to eat into translation jobs at the lower end, at this point
The next iteration of machine translation combined with voice cloning and GPTs in general will be scarily good. If you want they will take your words in English and make them sound instantaneously BETTER in Spanish, Mandarin, Punjab
Honestly, my friend was completely fatalistic. “It’s over” he said. And this has been his professional field for 30 years
Just like handweaving was destroyed, or horse plowing. Jobs go, new ones are created.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
That's what dying is. The nerve-ends become spasmodic and disorganized, discharging their remaining contents as they break down. Activity is present but meaningless. People who have been revived at/near the very end report it feeling like panful pins-and-needles and very cold. Then a few minutes later it's all gone...and so are you.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
I'd expect the Conservatives to reach 30% in NEV. Simply because Reform won't translate its poll rating into votes on the ground.
I tend to agree with this. Tories to get between 30% and 33% is my forecast.
I suspect they'll be at the low-end of that range, with Labour up four or five points on 2019 (NEV 34-35). However, I expect the Conservatives to underperform due to tactical voting.
In terms of vote share, I thought the Yougov MRP numbers were not too bad for the Tories. More of a 2012 result than a1995 result.
If you look at the conflict maps around Bakhmut, over the past two months the Russians have advanced about seven miles. If you did it in a taxi it'd cost you about £20. They turned a town into a lunar landscape, fighting over the rubble of rubble, spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, over a journey which is about as long as I'd have to travel to get some IKEA Billy shelves. I don't know what to say, I really don't.
"‘The Godfather of A.I.’ Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead For half a century, Geoffrey Hinton nurtured the technology at the heart of chatbots like ChatGPT. Now he worries it will cause serious harm."
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
I'm not sure what the up to date figures are, but according to this ONS report from 2013, that increase was all before 1998 and the proportion of single person households was stable after then.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
I'm not sure what the up to date figures are, but according to this ONS report from 2013, that increase was all before 1998 and the proportion of single person households was stable after then.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
I'm not sure what the up to date figures are, but according to this ONS report from 2013, that increase was all before 1998 and the proportion of single person households was stable after then.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
I'm not sure what the up to date figures are, but according to this ONS report from 2013, that increase was all before 1998 and the proportion of single person households was stable after then.
I'm always impressed how they managed to get this whole thing done over a weekend. Is there a discord group or something where the FDIC posts things like hey anyone want a bank, it's pretty nice
Silly question really, but I'd be interested to know what percentage of people typically vote 1 Con, 1 Lab, 1 LD in 3 member wards where those parties are standing.
Not very many at all, but some, and, because they very often just choose the top one from each party, it’s a prime source for the tendency for candidates with surnames earlier in the alphabet to do better.
If you meet such a person they often say they want to achieve a more balanced council and have councillors from different parties working together. If they understood the system better they would realise that in most areas the appropriate was to try and achieve that would be to cast all three votes for the LibDems (or other local third party).
I think turnout will be pretty poor on Thursday. No-one is talking about it, at all, and everyone has better things to do.
Mass apathy reigns.
But when was the last local election when the potential political identity of people’s councillors was all they could talk about?
When I was going to the Peak District on Sunday, I did a bit of a poster watch. Orange diamonds aplenty in Oadby, Labour posters in Chesterfield, a single Tory poster in a field in the High Peak, green posters in Edale, and a Tory canvas tean in Leicester on the way back. The only leaflets that my passengers reported were the LD focus team ones.
I thought LAB could say the cost of abolishing fees could be met from abolishing non dom status 👍
I do hope there is noone in Labour's ranks who's aunt cousin brother sister wife husband mistress son daughter and so on and so forth who has non dom status... the cries of hypocrisy would hit high c.
I think turnout will be pretty poor on Thursday. No-one is talking about it, at all, and everyone has better things to do.
Mass apathy reigns.
But when was the last local election when the potential political identity of people’s councillors was all they could talk about?
When I was going to the Peak District on Sunday, I did a bit of a poster watch. Orange diamonds aplenty in Oadby, Labour posters in Chesterfield, a single Tory poster in a field in the High Peak, green posters in Edale, and a Tory canvas tean in Leicester on the way back. The only leaflets that my passengers reported were the LD focus team ones.
So there is some visible activity, but not a lot.
In this respect, the Kirklees lamppost posting by law is most helpful.
We are awash with posters, my picture shows one lamppost in Lindley, an affluent remainy commuter ward towards the motorway in Huddersfield, (Colne Valley from a constituency poc) which is.a LD /Tory ward with Labour usually a decent third.
Stupid stupid stupid. Who is going to benefit from a Starmer administration?
1. There really really really is no money left.
2. Rubbish as student loan repayments are, the main beneficiaries of their abolition would be graduates who earn an absolute fortune (top city law types), since they're about the only ones who ever pay them off. Everyone else just had to wait for the write-off to kick in, which was the plan all along.
Bunging scarce cash at the very richest is the sort of thing that got Liz and Kwasi into so much trouble.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
I think turnout will be pretty poor on Thursday. No-one is talking about it, at all, and everyone has better things to do.
Mass apathy reigns.
But when was the last local election when the potential political identity of people’s councillors was all they could talk about?
When I was going to the Peak District on Sunday, I did a bit of a poster watch. Orange diamonds aplenty in Oadby, Labour posters in Chesterfield, a single Tory poster in a field in the High Peak, green posters in Edale, and a Tory canvas tean in Leicester on the way back. The only leaflets that my passengers reported were the LD focus team ones.
Silly question really, but I'd be interested to know what percentage of people typically vote 1 Con, 1 Lab, 1 LD in 3 member wards where those parties are standing.
Not very many at all, but some, and, because they very often just choose the top one from each party, it’s a prime source for the tendency for candidates with surnames earlier in the alphabet to do better.
If you meet such a person they often say they want to achieve a more balanced council and have councillors from different parties working together. If they understood the system better they would realise that in most areas the appropriate was to try and achieve that would be to cast all three votes for the LibDems (or other local third party).
A Conservative friend of mine said he had used his second vote for one of the Lib Dem candidates because there was only one Conservative candidate in his two member ward!!
Football: didn't get around to posting yesterday (and I skip it half the time anyway) but backed Bournemouth at home to beat Chelsea at 4.2. Chelsea does have two games in hand but Bournemouth and they are tied on points, while the home side has much better recent form. Also, they both have reasonably average respective home and away records. Not a slam dunk or anything but I was quite surprised the odds were over 4.
How many councils are counting on Thursday night? Harborough is opening the boxes on Thursday evening but only to verify the numbers. Papers will be bundled face up but not sorted, so should be able to predict results if not too close. Actual counting not until 10.30 Friday.
Stupid stupid stupid. Who is going to benefit from a Starmer administration?
1. There really really really is no money left.
2. Rubbish as student loan repayments are, the main beneficiaries of their abolition would be graduates who earn an absolute fortune (top city law types), since they're about the only ones who ever pay them off. Everyone else just had to wait for the write-off to kick in, which was the plan all along.
Bunging scarce cash at the very richest is the sort of thing that got Liz and Kwasi into so much trouble.
I think Starmer needs to do something on Student Loans and fees. Cutting the rate of interest , or even making them interest free would do. It would even be self funding in that most of the book is going to be written off already.
An alternative would be to raise the threshold, so repayments cut in later, but that is more expensive in the short term.
Electorally and politically it would be better to soften repayments than to abolish fees, as there are far more graduates than people at university, and also more likely to turn out.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
Pleased to see build costs on your list.
I was listening again yesterday to people complaining about rent rises blaming 'greedy landlords'. This was after meeting a friend who has decided to put his 1 bed rental flat (a property he bought off his son to 'help him out' - thus becoming a landlord) in to an auction at well below market value. He was fed up of the unpaid work involved in being the director of the freehold company when new owner occupiers were buying up flats and deciding not to serve as directors. He explained that, despite not having any mortgage, the costs (service charges, estate agent fees, survey fees, insurances etc) meant that there was no return at all from the rent - all risk and no reward. The conclusion was there was absolutely no point. Anyone buying the flat and renting it out will need to double the rent just to get a return that meets the 3.5% or whatever you can now get buy putting money in the bank.
So my 13th reason to add to your list is 'increased regulation regarding flats and in the private rented sector generally'.
Yes. I think it was widely viewed as inevitable, or at least highly likely. The authorities were trying to keep it afloat as long as possible as a firebreak - ie not because they really saw it as viable but to keep the market focused on its problems rather than moving onto the next potential failures and putting those banks under pressure.
On the subject of UK property, here are some charts.
Firstly, let's look at new houses and flats built:
We're building fewer, despite our population growing faster.
Secondly, let's look at the price of building a home:
It's roughly doubled in the last decade. Which makes it harder and harder to build properties profitably as a developer.
Lastly, here's the Nationwide house price to multiple of incomes:
There's a couple of interesting things here: one is the roughly halving of house prices relative to incomes in the first half of the 90s, which set the property market up for the long boom from 1996 to 2007. Secondly, net migration to the UK was strongest between 2008 and 2016, which was a time during which price-to-earnings ratios barely budged.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
Pleased to see build costs on your list.
I was listening again yesterday to people complaining about rent rises blaming 'greedy landlords'. This was after meeting a friend who has decided to put his 1 bed rental flat (a property he bought off his son to 'help him out' - thus becoming a landlord) in to an auction at well below market value. He was fed up of the unpaid work involved in being the director of the freehold company when new owner occupiers were buying up flats and deciding not to serve as directors. He explained that, despite not having any mortgage, the costs (service charges, estate agent fees, survey fees, insurances etc) meant that there was no return at all from the rent - all risk and no reward. The conclusion was there was absolutely no point. Anyone buying the flat and renting it out will need to double the rent just to get a return that meets the 3.5% or whatever you can now get buy putting money in the bank.
So my 13th reason to add to your list is 'increased regulation regarding flats and in the private rented sector generally'.
Build costs have roughly doubled since 2010, and that makes it really quite hard to bring new properties onto the market at attractive prices, unless they are really small.
Of the local elections, Leicester is the most interesting, and not just because of its proximity to me.
The conflict between the Mayor and the Councillors (nearly all elected as Labour, but many now sitting as independents or other parties) has had a lot of de-selections. All the rivals to the Mayor either promise to abolish the role or to have a referendum on its abolition. Then there is the Hindutva issue as exhibited in last autumn's Street disturbances on top of the shenanigans.
My hunch is that Sir Peter Soulsby will hang on, but with a less Labour council. The Conservatives are strong within the Hindu community so may gain some seats in the East and North of the city.
There is a good summary of the hijinks in this recent article:
I think turnout will be pretty poor on Thursday. No-one is talking about it, at all, and everyone has better things to do.
Mass apathy reigns.
But when was the last local election when the potential political identity of people’s councillors was all they could talk about?
When I was going to the Peak District on Sunday, I did a bit of a poster watch. Orange diamonds aplenty in Oadby, Labour posters in Chesterfield, a single Tory poster in a field in the High Peak, green posters in Edale, and a Tory canvas tean in Leicester on the way back. The only leaflets that my passengers reported were the LD focus team ones.
Silly question really, but I'd be interested to know what percentage of people typically vote 1 Con, 1 Lab, 1 LD in 3 member wards where those parties are standing.
Not very many at all, but some, and, because they very often just choose the top one from each party, it’s a prime source for the tendency for candidates with surnames earlier in the alphabet to do better.
If you meet such a person they often say they want to achieve a more balanced council and have councillors from different parties working together. If they understood the system better they would realise that in most areas the appropriate was to try and achieve that would be to cast all three votes for the LibDems (or other local third party).
A Conservative friend of mine said he had used his second vote for one of the Lib Dem candidates because there was only one Conservative candidate in his two member ward!!
That way lies the slippery slope towards voting for Plaid Cymru…
How many councils are counting on Thursday night? Harborough is opening the boxes on Thursday evening but only to verify the numbers. Papers will be bundled face up but not sorted, so should be able to predict results if not too close. Actual counting not until 10.30 Friday.
If the campaign team knows what it is doing, they should be able to estimate the final vote pretty precisely from observing the verification
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
For a similar population, IIRC, we have 8 million less properties than France.
Stupid stupid stupid. Who is going to benefit from a Starmer administration?
1. There really really really is no money left.
2. Rubbish as student loan repayments are, the main beneficiaries of their abolition would be graduates who earn an absolute fortune (top city law types), since they're about the only ones who ever pay them off. Everyone else just had to wait for the write-off to kick in, which was the plan all along.
Bunging scarce cash at the very richest is the sort of thing that got Liz and Kwasi into so much trouble.
Not quite correct on the figures I saw at the time. Those on the very highest incomes will pay them off more quickly, so will pay less overall than those on higher middle incomes.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
For a similar population, IIRC, we have 8 million less properties than France.
I think turnout will be pretty poor on Thursday. No-one is talking about it, at all, and everyone has better things to do.
Mass apathy reigns.
But when was the last local election when the potential political identity of people’s councillors was all they could talk about?
When I was going to the Peak District on Sunday, I did a bit of a poster watch. Orange diamonds aplenty in Oadby, Labour posters in Chesterfield, a single Tory poster in a field in the High Peak, green posters in Edale, and a Tory canvas tean in Leicester on the way back. The only leaflets that my passengers reported were the LD focus team ones.
Silly question really, but I'd be interested to know what percentage of people typically vote 1 Con, 1 Lab, 1 LD in 3 member wards where those parties are standing.
Not very many at all, but some, and, because they very often just choose the top one from each party, it’s a prime source for the tendency for candidates with surnames earlier in the alphabet to do better.
If you meet such a person they often say they want to achieve a more balanced council and have councillors from different parties working together. If they understood the system better they would realise that in most areas the appropriate was to try and achieve that would be to cast all three votes for the LibDems (or other local third party).
A Conservative friend of mine said he had used his second vote for one of the Lib Dem candidates because there was only one Conservative candidate in his two member ward!!
That way lies the slippery slope towards voting for Plaid Cymru…
If you look at the conflict maps around Bakhmut, over the past two months the Russians have advanced about seven miles. If you did it in a taxi it'd cost you about £20. They turned a town into a lunar landscape, fighting over the rubble of rubble, spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, over a journey which is about as long as I'd have to travel to get some IKEA Billy shelves. I don't know what to say, I really don't.
Russia is working on the theory that Ukraine is on the brink of collapse, and one last heave is all that is required.
If you look at the conflict maps around Bakhmut, over the past two months the Russians have advanced about seven miles. If you did it in a taxi it'd cost you about £20. They turned a town into a lunar landscape, fighting over the rubble of rubble, spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, over a journey which is about as long as I'd have to travel to get some IKEA Billy shelves. I don't know what to say, I really don't.
Russia is working on the theory that Ukraine is on the brink of collapse, and one last heave is all that is required.
I suspect that theory is bunkum.
It is. But I would guess the plan is rather to try and hang on for a stalemate, on the assumption that the west gets tired of funding the war before they do. Probably delusional too, but slightly less so.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
For a similar population, IIRC, we have 8 million less properties than France.
Weirdly, though, the number of households in France has actually grown more quickly than in the UK. Back in 1996, both had just under 24 million households. Now the UK has 28 million, while France has almost 30 million.
Which is weird, because (I think) France has seen less net migration than the UK.
Just working out a fantasy "do fuck all for the rest of my life" strategy:
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this. (2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm? (3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm (4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
Just working out a fantasy "do fuck all for the rest of my life" strategy:
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this. (2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm? (3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm (4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
Why would you want to do so?
Work gives meaning to existence. If you don't like your job, and have education and skills, then look for one with more purpose.
If you look at the conflict maps around Bakhmut, over the past two months the Russians have advanced about seven miles. If you did it in a taxi it'd cost you about £20. They turned a town into a lunar landscape, fighting over the rubble of rubble, spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, over a journey which is about as long as I'd have to travel to get some IKEA Billy shelves. I don't know what to say, I really don't.
Russia is working on the theory that Ukraine is on the brink of collapse, and one last heave is all that is required.
I suspect that theory is bunkum.
They appear to be channeling the ghost of Luigi Cadorna.
Who was famed for his persistence, if nothing else. Hence “The Eleventh Battle of the Isonzo”
*I think that Caporetto should be called the twelfth battle, since that makes a tidy set….
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
For a similar population, IIRC, we have 8 million less properties than France.
Weirdly, though, the number of households in France has actually grown more quickly than in the UK. Back in 1996, both had just under 24 million households. Now the UK has 28 million, while France has almost 30 million.
Which is weird, because (I think) France has seen less net migration than the UK.
Large families creating more households, as they move to seperate accommodation?
"‘The Godfather of A.I.’ Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead For half a century, Geoffrey Hinton nurtured the technology at the heart of chatbots like ChatGPT. Now he worries it will cause serious harm."
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
For a similar population, IIRC, we have 8 million less properties than France.
Just working out a fantasy "do fuck all for the rest of my life" strategy:
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this. (2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm? (3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm (4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
Why would you want to do so?
Work gives meaning to existence. If you don't like your job, and have education and skills, then look for one with more purpose.
I would recommend one does something but it's a "beholden to no-one" position.
It also opens up possibilities of research, education, volunteering, artistic endeavours etc.
Stupid stupid stupid. Who is going to benefit from a Starmer administration?
1. There really really really is no money left.
2. Rubbish as student loan repayments are, the main beneficiaries of their abolition would be graduates who earn an absolute fortune (top city law types), since they're about the only ones who ever pay them off. Everyone else just had to wait for the write-off to kick in, which was the plan all along.
Bunging scarce cash at the very richest is the sort of thing that got Liz and Kwasi into so much trouble.
I think Starmer needs to do something on Student Loans and fees. Cutting the rate of interest , or even making them interest free would do. It would even be self funding in that most of the book is going to be written off already.
An alternative would be to raise the threshold, so repayments cut in later, but that is more expensive in the short term.
Electorally and politically it would be better to soften repayments than to abolish fees, as there are far more graduates than people at university, and also more likely to turn out.
It’s not that easy because clever Mr Osborne sold the loans on to financial investors with the current RPI+ model included in the contract. Expensive for the government to fix.
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
Pleased to see build costs on your list.
I was listening again yesterday to people complaining about rent rises blaming 'greedy landlords'. This was after meeting a friend who has decided to put his 1 bed rental flat (a property he bought off his son to 'help him out' - thus becoming a landlord) in to an auction at well below market value. He was fed up of the unpaid work involved in being the director of the freehold company when new owner occupiers were buying up flats and deciding not to serve as directors. He explained that, despite not having any mortgage, the costs (service charges, estate agent fees, survey fees, insurances etc) meant that there was no return at all from the rent - all risk and no reward. The conclusion was there was absolutely no point. Anyone buying the flat and renting it out will need to double the rent just to get a return that meets the 3.5% or whatever you can now get buy putting money in the bank.
So my 13th reason to add to your list is 'increased regulation regarding flats and in the private rented sector generally'.
Build costs have roughly doubled since 2010, and that makes it really quite hard to bring new properties onto the market at attractive prices, unless they are really small.
Does that include land or is it just the physical build?
Just working out a fantasy "do fuck all for the rest of my life" strategy:
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this. (2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm? (3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm (4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
Why would you want to do so?
Work gives meaning to existence. If you don't like your job, and have education and skills, then look for one with more purpose.
I would recommend one does something but it's a "beholden to no-one" position.
It also opens up possibilities of research, education, volunteering, artistic endeavours etc.
Or, as in my own case, doing work I enjoy (software development) for the equivalent of minimum wage, but completely on my own terms.
I posted an example of a "fuck you" housing development yesterday. 100 houses. On a flood plain. One road in and out which is already at crush capacity. No space for new roads, nothing spent on schools or doctors or facilities.
And how much do they want for a shitbox 2-bed semi in this hellhole? £240k! And for one with a bit more room, say a 4 bed detached (almost touching the one next door with at least one bedroom you can't fit a bed it)? £338k!
This is on the edge of Rochdale. Who can afford these? Thats a lot of mortgage for not a lot of house. And did I mention flood plain, traffic hell and no facilities?
This is the problem with housing in this country. Yes, house building prices have doubled. But wages haven't. And developers are throwing up austerity homes in the wrong location to make everyone's lives miserable.
Just working out a fantasy "do fuck all for the rest of my life" strategy:
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this. (2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm? (3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm (4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
I don't feel like a career in life coaching beckons.
If you look at the conflict maps around Bakhmut, over the past two months the Russians have advanced about seven miles. If you did it in a taxi it'd cost you about £20. They turned a town into a lunar landscape, fighting over the rubble of rubble, spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, over a journey which is about as long as I'd have to travel to get some IKEA Billy shelves. I don't know what to say, I really don't.
Russia is working on the theory that Ukraine is on the brink of collapse, and one last heave is all that is required.
I suspect that theory is bunkum.
Are you still predicting an imminent Russian collapse?
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
For a similar population, IIRC, we have 8 million less properties than France.
Weirdly, though, the number of households in France has actually grown more quickly than in the UK. Back in 1996, both had just under 24 million households. Now the UK has 28 million, while France has almost 30 million.
Which is weird, because (I think) France has seen less net migration than the UK.
I think household size has been falling more in France. Average French household 2.22 people, UK 2.4.
2.4/2.22 is pretty much exactly the same as 30/28.
Just working out a fantasy "do fuck all for the rest of my life" strategy:
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this. (2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm? (3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm (4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
I remember when unsellable houses in Sunderland were quite the scandal. Asylum seekers were being given "free" homes. As you propose they wouldn't be working (as not allowed) and would basically sit there doing nothing (as you propose).
Two problems with this freedom thing. One, the homes at the price bracket you mention are in exciting places like Plains Farm and Sliksworth. Back in the day the asylum seekers went into houses in Hendon's "Murder Mile" where *nobody* wanted to live.
The idea of buying a house on Plains Farm is funny, especially to sit and do nothing. You'd get branded a paedo and wake up on fire. There is a reason you can buy a home for that kind of money there - it is hell.
Stupid stupid stupid. Who is going to benefit from a Starmer administration?
1. There really really really is no money left.
2. Rubbish as student loan repayments are, the main beneficiaries of their abolition would be graduates who earn an absolute fortune (top city law types), since they're about the only ones who ever pay them off. Everyone else just had to wait for the write-off to kick in, which was the plan all along.
Bunging scarce cash at the very richest is the sort of thing that got Liz and Kwasi into so much trouble.
I think Starmer needs to do something on Student Loans and fees. Cutting the rate of interest , or even making them interest free would do. It would even be self funding in that most of the book is going to be written off already.
An alternative would be to raise the threshold, so repayments cut in later, but that is more expensive in the short term.
Electorally and politically it would be better to soften repayments than to abolish fees, as there are far more graduates than people at university, and also more likely to turn out.
It’s not that easy because clever Mr Osborne sold the loans on to financial investors with the current RPI+ model included in the contract. Expensive for the government to fix.
As with many of the problems set to beset the next government, there's not much to be done unless those boffins at ARIA can invent a time machine and get previous politicians to take better decisions.
However, here's the IFS graph for the Labour 2019 policy;
And here's the graph for the reforms the 2019-24 government has introduced. Lowering the interest rate by cutting the repayment threshold and extending the term to 40 years has horrible effects;
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
The same time they opened the floodgates on immigration. Amazing how increasing the population faster than the housing stock can keep up does that.
Yes, but huge housing bubbles can also happen in countries with stagnant populations, for example Taiwan.
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
This is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy, where there's a desire to attribute everything to a single cause, when there are many different factors all of which had varying impacts.
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
On (3) I've had a look at this using the boe interest rate, Nationwide housing series and inflation Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
For a similar population, IIRC, we have 8 million less properties than France.
Weirdly, though, the number of households in France has actually grown more quickly than in the UK. Back in 1996, both had just under 24 million households. Now the UK has 28 million, while France has almost 30 million.
Which is weird, because (I think) France has seen less net migration than the UK.
I think household size has been falling more in France. Average French household 2.22 people, UK 2.4.
2.4/2.22 is pretty much exactly the same as 30/28.
In the UK, we have seen the rise of the extended household, as young people can't afford to move out and many now return to the parental home saddled with debt after university, because they no longer have the means to pay astronomical rents for a place of their own.
Just working out a fantasy "do fuck all for the rest of my life" strategy:
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this. (2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm? (3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm (4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
Well.
I accidentally did large parts of that strategy.
London homeowner at age of 21, moved back up to the desolate North a few years later, making me mortgage free before my 30th birthday.
Comments
At least he's doing it now, rather than in government like the Lib-Dems did.
Is that it, this is really poor from the Tories/Sun, expected a better nickname.
Except it will be better than Babelfish. When you talk to a German you’ll be able to talk like David Attenborough or King Chas 3 or Ray Winstone or whoever, as here
https://twitter.com/heybarsee/status/1652625721309765632?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Voters can be odd - enough people only vote once in multi ward elections (despite the number being on the ballot) that I suspect some assume only one vote is allowed (obviously others like you suggest do so intentionally), whilst others go the opposite route and feel the need to use up all their votes even if it might conceivably hurt the party they actually support.
Whereas given MOE, an increase of +5% really IS an increase; though perhaps not as much as that, but also possibly a bit more."
Depends on the confidence interval chosen, and the number polled. (In political polls, 95% and about 1,000 are common.)
(For the record: I believe that your thinking is clearer if you use the latest poll results to adjust your personal probabilities, so you might, for example, make a small adjustment for 1% change, and a little larger one for a 5 percent change. But I don't know enough about modern Bayesian thinking to go further than that.)
The move to not abolish them is risky even though that was a previous manifesto pledge and it’s not some u-turn once in government .
The next iteration of machine translation combined with voice cloning and GPTs in general will be scarily good. If you want they will take your words in English and make them sound instantaneously BETTER in Spanish, Mandarin, Punjab
Honestly, my friend was completely fatalistic. “It’s over” he said. And this has been his professional field for 30 years
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-12034119/Britain-rallies-royals-Major-new-poll-reveals-little-appetite-republicanism.html
https://twitter.com/Johnincarlisle/status/1653007977111068673
"@AaronBastani
Look at what happens after 1997. The housing crisis: by far Labour’s greatest domestic failure the last time they were in government. They happily surfed a wave of rising value - but it was a social time bomb."
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1653108930577326096
"Starmer ready to abandon pledge on free university tuition"
https://twitter.com/willglloyd/status/1653154003520303111
Ah well
The difference is that in those countries, rents do not rise with house prices.
How much of the UK's problem is supply & demand and how much is bubble, who knows.
numbers were not too bad for the Tories. More of a 2012 result than a1995 result.
If you look at the conflict maps around Bakhmut, over the past two months the Russians have advanced about seven miles. If you did it in a taxi it'd cost you about £20. They turned a town into a lunar landscape, fighting over the rubble of rubble, spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, over a journey which is about as long as I'd have to travel to get some IKEA Billy shelves. I don't know what to say, I really don't.
"‘The Godfather of A.I.’ Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead
For half a century, Geoffrey Hinton nurtured the technology at the heart of chatbots like ChatGPT. Now he worries it will cause serious harm."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html
Here are some:
(1) The massive rise in the number of single person households. They used to be almost unknown (except for widows/widowers), but there are now 4 million single person households under 65 (from almost nothing in 1979). Basically, people getting married later created a lot of additional demand for housing.)
(2) Divorce. Yep: that also creates new households.
(3) Falling interest rates. People buy on affordability. If interest rates fall, then people spend more.
(4) Existing house price rises. Why? Because that meant people had "gains" they could use, and could bid up properties.
(5) Immigration.
(6) Rising building costs
(7) Planning restrictions
(8) Uneven growth across the country. You can have empty houses in some parts of the UK, that you can't give away, while in other parts, small apartments go for hundreds of thousands.
(9) Foreign buyers acquiring off plan apartments for "investment" purposes.
(10) People living longer.
(11) Stamp duty that discourages people trading down.
(12) Policies to encourage people to become landlords.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/compendium/generallifestylesurvey/2013-03-07/chapter3householdsfamilesandpeoplegenerallifestylesurveyoverviewareportonthe2011generallifestylesurvey
https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/802023-rp-46645
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/01/jp-morgan-take-over-first-republic-bank/
Mass apathy reigns.
If you meet such a person they often say they want to achieve a more balanced council and have councillors from different parties working together. If they understood the system better they would realise that in most areas the appropriate was to try and achieve that would be to cast all three votes for the LibDems (or other local third party).
So there is some visible activity, but not a lot.
We are awash with posters, my picture shows one lamppost in Lindley, an affluent remainy commuter ward towards the motorway in
Huddersfield, (Colne Valley from a constituency poc) which is.a LD /Tory ward with Labour usually a decent third.
2. Rubbish as student loan repayments are, the main beneficiaries of their abolition would be graduates who earn an absolute fortune (top city law types), since they're about the only ones who ever pay them off. Everyone else just had to wait for the write-off to kick in, which was the plan all along.
Bunging scarce cash at the very richest is the sort of thing that got Liz and Kwasi into so much trouble.
Peak mortgage in real terms for the average house was Q3 2007
Football: didn't get around to posting yesterday (and I skip it half the time anyway) but backed Bournemouth at home to beat Chelsea at 4.2. Chelsea does have two games in hand but Bournemouth and they are tied on points, while the home side has much better recent form. Also, they both have reasonably average respective home and away records. Not a slam dunk or anything but I was quite surprised the odds were over 4.
There's not the mass anger to motivate people to out and give the Government a kicking because the alternatives are meh and people have switched off.
Even those who have thought about it (myself included) just can't be arsed.
An alternative would be to raise the threshold, so repayments cut in later, but that is more expensive in the short term.
Electorally and politically it would be better to soften repayments than to abolish fees, as there are far more graduates than people at university, and also more likely to turn out.
I was listening again yesterday to people complaining about rent rises blaming 'greedy landlords'. This was after meeting a friend who has decided to put his 1 bed rental flat (a property he bought off his son to 'help him out' - thus becoming a landlord) in to an auction at well below market value. He was fed up of the unpaid work involved in being the director of the freehold company when new owner occupiers were buying up flats and deciding not to serve as directors. He explained that, despite not having any mortgage, the costs (service charges, estate agent fees, survey fees, insurances etc) meant that there was no return at all from the rent - all risk and no reward. The conclusion was there was absolutely no point. Anyone buying the flat and renting it out will need to double the rent just to get a return that meets the 3.5% or whatever you can now get buy putting money in the bank.
So my 13th reason to add to your list is 'increased regulation regarding flats and in the private rented sector generally'.
Firstly, let's look at new houses and flats built:
We're building fewer, despite our population growing faster.
Secondly, let's look at the price of building a home:
It's roughly doubled in the last decade. Which makes it harder and harder to build properties profitably as a developer.
Lastly, here's the Nationwide house price to multiple of incomes:
There's a couple of interesting things here: one is the roughly halving of house prices relative to incomes in the first half of the 90s, which set the property market up for the long boom from 1996 to 2007. Secondly, net migration to the UK was strongest between 2008 and 2016, which was a time during which price-to-earnings ratios barely budged.
The conflict between the Mayor and the Councillors (nearly all elected as Labour, but many now sitting as independents or other parties) has had a lot of de-selections. All the rivals to the Mayor either promise to abolish the role or to have a referendum on its abolition. Then there is the Hindutva issue as exhibited in last autumn's Street disturbances on top of the shenanigans.
My hunch is that Sir Peter Soulsby will hang on, but with a less Labour council. The Conservatives are strong within the Hindu community so may gain some seats in the East and North of the city.
There is a good summary of the hijinks in this recent article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-65374381
I suspect that theory is bunkum.
But I would guess the plan is rather to try and hang on for a stalemate, on the assumption that the west gets tired of funding the war before they do.
Probably delusional too, but slightly less so.
Which is weird, because (I think) France has seen less net migration than the UK.
(1) Buy a 2 or 3 bed semi/flat in Sunderland (or similar) for £100k, cash. No mortgage. Most who cash out down South in their early 40s can probably do this.
(2) Core expenses council tax/water/gas/electricity/broadband/TV licence etc. £450 pcm?
(3) Transport/fuel - let's say £150 pcm
(4) Food, drink, purchases and "fun" say £400 pcm
Basically, if you can derive £1,000pcm+ and you're mortgage free you can do whatever you like for the rest of your life, I think.
You'd probably need £400-450k of investments to draw on to generate it. Or you could do 'any' min wage job 4 days a week.
But, you do have to live in Sunderland. And it's not like you can go on adventure holidays.
Work gives meaning to existence. If you don't like your job, and have education and skills, then look for one with more purpose.
Who was famed for his persistence, if nothing else. Hence “The Eleventh Battle of the Isonzo”
*I think that Caporetto should be called the twelfth battle, since that makes a tidy set….
It also opens up possibilities of research, education, volunteering, artistic endeavours etc.
And how much do they want for a shitbox 2-bed semi in this hellhole? £240k! And for one with a bit more room, say a 4 bed detached (almost touching the one next door with at least one bedroom you can't fit a bed it)? £338k!
This is on the edge of Rochdale. Who can afford these? Thats a lot of mortgage for not a lot of house. And did I mention flood plain, traffic hell and no facilities?
This is the problem with housing in this country. Yes, house building prices have doubled. But wages haven't. And developers are throwing up austerity homes in the wrong location to make everyone's lives miserable.
https://russellhomes.co.uk/find-a-new-home/new-homes/stubley-meadows/property-types
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/03078c60-e85e-11ed-8b19-8262c49fff39?shareToken=9687bcd60e8d1207e32d32abe5043525
2.4/2.22 is pretty much exactly the same as 30/28.
Two problems with this freedom thing. One, the homes at the price bracket you mention are in exciting places like Plains Farm and Sliksworth. Back in the day the asylum seekers went into houses in Hendon's "Murder Mile" where *nobody* wanted to live.
The idea of buying a house on Plains Farm is funny, especially to sit and do nothing. You'd get branded a paedo and wake up on fire. There is a reason you can buy a home for that kind of money there - it is hell.
However, here's the IFS graph for the Labour 2019 policy;
And here's the graph for the reforms the 2019-24 government has introduced. Lowering the interest rate by cutting the repayment threshold and extending the term to 40 years has horrible effects;
Details here:
https://ifs.org.uk/collections/student-finance
I accidentally did large parts of that strategy.
London homeowner at age of 21, moved back up to the desolate North a few years later, making me mortgage free before my 30th birthday.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/terrorist-groups-attack-risk-london-coronation-police-security-2023-n6rr6nwv9
Afraid of the competition?