This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
Immigration is not infinite, so no it is not.
The UK's population growth is not exceptionally significant. There is no reason, besides our Byzantine planning regulations that forbid people without permission from building homes, that we can not build enough homes to more than keep up with both population and demographic changes.
Heaven forfend we should build more affordable housing up north somewhere.
Almost uniquely among our peers, Britain's economic activity is concentrated in one corner. It is not sustainable. We need new towns, or at least refurbished or expanded old ones. Transport links between them would be nice too but that's off the agenda.
There needs to be a whole series of new towns in the South. Start at Milton Keynes and Biscester, and follow the roads and rail lines towards London, building alongside the transport links and adding access to them.
My modest proposal is to turn HS2 into a metro line straddled by a longitudinal city two miles wide and 150 miles long. That would leave the rest of the country free for planting spuds, grazing sheep, etc etc.
I'm sure all those Israel-critics who are saying they think Israel has a right to self-defence in theory but shouldn't be fighting Hamas in Palestine and should instead take the fight to the leaders of Hamas abroad will be lining up to congratulate Israel for what they have done overnight . . .
What's interesting is that it happened in Iran. Was this guy one of the ones sunning himself in Qatar? Suggests Iran is leaky.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
Immigration is not infinite, so no it is not.
The UK's population growth is not exceptionally significant. There is no reason, besides our Byzantine planning regulations that forbid people without permission from building homes, that we can not build enough homes to more than keep up with both population and demographic changes.
If Britain were transformed overnight into your utopia, would it be more or less attractive to immigrants?
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
The new government has confirmed two major changes to how the minimum wage is set.
Jonathan Reynolds, the new business secretary, has ordered the Low Pay Commission (LPC) to change its remit so the body must in future factor in the cost of living when deciding the rate of the minimum wage and national living wage.
The measure is likely to further blur the difference between the minimum wage and the national living wage - long reflecting unhappiness in the labour movement about the latter.
The minimum wage must be driven by economics and the demand for labour. If we have high employment, like now, and a shortage of labour it is sensible to increase the NMW by quite a lot because it incentivises work, encourages the more productive use of labour, reduces benefit contributions from the state and improves equality, all of which are good things.
But if we start to find unemployment increasing we need to reduce the cost of employing people so that demand for labour increases again and people are not priced out of the jobs market.
Of course we want people on the NMW to have a decent standard of living, not least because all too often we as a country end up topping up incomes if they don't. But it is not the criteria by which this yardstick should move: it is a macro policy not a micro one.
Yes but do we actually have "high unemployment like now" or just distorted figures where the economically inactive no longer feature?
Just a brief comment re: the Helter Skelter nonsense put out by a couple of posters last night. This site used to be a go to for partisan but informed debate. Reasonably knock about but the point is that it was reasonable and often very well informed. The comments last night were not acceptable. As now seems clear, the fascist right went to Southport for a paddy outside a Mosque. This is not politics, it was crime. Those talking about "sending them back" here last night fell into a very nasty, far right, rabbit hole for which there was little to no justification. Several long time posters are leaving PB because self indulgent egoists hijack threads and either genuinely post or assume a pose of supporting, nakedly racist or otherwise anti democratic crap. The site is becoming an unreadable parody of itself as a result. I would miss the old place, and appreciate the work RCS and TSE have done since the sad retirement of OGH, but unless these posters moderate themselves or get moderated, and quickly, then repeated unreadable threads will do their own work. Perhaps some may say it was some kind of joke, but it's a pretty sick joke when kids die and you are echoing EDL racist talking points.
Oh you're the PB police guy, right?
Just tell people they're being idiots and why, rather than trying to ban everything. I have no doubt your rhetorical skills are up to the job.
No he's saying that some of the posters are potentially going to drive him (having already driven many other former posters) from this site.
and I really didn't like having to point out the racist undertones many posters revealed themselves to have last night..
Fair enough then let him leave.
It's perfectly legitimate to be racist. Indicative of a failure of intelligence, of logic, of fear or of something else, all of which can helpfully be explained if anyone can be bothered. I began a reply to eg Leon yesterday but realised I couldn't be bothered in this instance.
I have been bothered several times before, however, and Leon, probably also by his own admission, benefits from when people can be bothered to tell him what an arse he's being.
@cicero should try that approach. Or indeed leave the site I'm sure he will be missed. Or perhaps not.
There are three or four seriously unpleasant racists on here. Why should those who want to talk elections and politics like Cicero and twenty or so others have to wade through their sludge in order to enjoy the pleasurable and informative parts of this site?
Most of us through family friends and other connections know people like those being traduced and it isn't pleasant. Its also a huge insult to TSE and Robert who have done an extraordinary job maintaining the site as a gem for informative conversation.
Yesterday's thread had a few really ugly posts and even worse the support of some very insideous 'likes'
Racism is a thing and imo it is usually predicated on fear, ignorance, and lack of logic. I think what we see on here is an echoing of racist ideas rather than racism (although the distinction matters not on the written page).
To state the bleedin' obvious, and as a quick glance at its content will confirm, PB is not just about elections and politics. It is a microcosm of society whereby we all benefit from hearing views of a wide range of people and hence I don't think it out of place to "discuss" racism when someone on here makes what appears to be a racist comment.
If you really object to someone's views then skip over the post.
I(t's like being in a classroom where some deranged kids keeps scribbling on the blackboard. It's difficult to follow the thread of what's being talked about because it distracts everyone else.
But worse than that it's just ugly. There are lots of sites where racists can exchange stories why they should hate various of their fellow creatures but the reason why we're here and not there is because it isn't something most of us are interested in
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
As you say, there's much more to "construction" than building houses. Sounds almost as though you are advocating some form of national planning of these resources (which I'm sure you aren't).
A lot of construction will be capital investment whether it be HS2 or roadbuilding or infrastructure work or whatever.
A lot of the skills used in construction are also required in the domestic market - a lot of people now find it hard to get a plumber or an electrician or a handy man because the pandemic forced a lot of them out of business and those remaining are swamped with work.
The pay angle is the other side - if you have a specialism which is in demand and there aren't many with the skill, the asking price goes up - remember @NerysHughes telling us how contractors in southern England were demanding hugely inflated day rates. The uncomfortable truth is shortages suit those with the skills - it keeps their rates up and their services in demand. Transferring the skills weakens their bargaining position if you suddenly have dozens more people coming into the market with your skills.
You make it sound simple - if it were, it would be happening. That makes me think it isn't. If you want 10,000 extra plumbers, sparks or chippies from where do they come? How are they trained, by whom, how long does it take?
This is what will stop Labour's (and your) housebuilding aspirations - not planning, not NIMBYs but a lack of critical specialist skills.
I'm sure all those Israel-critics who are saying they think Israel has a right to self-defence in theory but shouldn't be fighting Hamas in Palestine and should instead take the fight to the leaders of Hamas abroad will be lining up to congratulate Israel for what they have done overnight . . .
What's interesting is that it happened in Iran. Was this guy one of the ones sunning himself in Qatar? Suggests Iran is leaky.
Yes he was, but I don't think it's 'leaky.' Rather, the fact he was very publicly in a country Israel knows it won't suffer diplomatic repercussions for bombing at a time when they're effectively at war anyway gave them both the opportunity to remove a key Hamas figure and the ability to send a nasty message to Iran.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
But you have decided that 3x an individual's salary is what the price ought to be. Sorry, @HYUFD is right, that ship sailed years ago and it isn't coming back.
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
I do, England has one of the highest population densities in the world. Sure you can turn it into one giant conurbation but that would be horrible for everyone. Our infrastructure from Motorways to Doctors surgeries is overwhelmed and it would cost a kings ransom to sort (not least as the higher the population density the more costly and complex to do anything).
Immigration levels need to be set at levels that result in slight population decline overall, with a very high skills and qualifications bar.
In tandem you need to reform the benefits system so that life for those capable of work is unpleasant enough that they will take the fruit picking and caring jobs that they see as beneath them.
Also a scheme, with financial incentives, for people to leave and go to places with a fraction of our population density, like France and Republic of Ireland.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
The new government has confirmed two major changes to how the minimum wage is set.
Jonathan Reynolds, the new business secretary, has ordered the Low Pay Commission (LPC) to change its remit so the body must in future factor in the cost of living when deciding the rate of the minimum wage and national living wage.
The measure is likely to further blur the difference between the minimum wage and the national living wage - long reflecting unhappiness in the labour movement about the latter.
The minimum wage must be driven by economics and the demand for labour. If we have high employment, like now, and a shortage of labour it is sensible to increase the NMW by quite a lot because it incentivises work, encourages the more productive use of labour, reduces benefit contributions from the state and improves equality, all of which are good things.
But if we start to find unemployment increasing we need to reduce the cost of employing people so that demand for labour increases again and people are not priced out of the jobs market.
Of course we want people on the NMW to have a decent standard of living, not least because all too often we as a country end up topping up incomes if they don't. But it is not the criteria by which this yardstick should move: it is a macro policy not a micro one.
Yes but do we actually have "high unemployment like now" or just distorted figures where the economically inactive no longer feature?
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
As you say, there's much more to "construction" than building houses. Sounds almost as though you are advocating some form of national planning of these resources (which I'm sure you aren't).
A lot of construction will be capital investment whether it be HS2 or roadbuilding or infrastructure work or whatever.
A lot of the skills used in construction are also required in the domestic market - a lot of people now find it hard to get a plumber or an electrician or a handy man because the pandemic forced a lot of them out of business and those remaining are swamped with work.
The pay angle is the other side - if you have a specialism which is in demand and there aren't many with the skill, the asking price goes up - remember @NerysHughes telling us how contractors in southern England were demanding hugely inflated day rates. The uncomfortable truth is shortages suit those with the skills - it keeps their rates up and their services in demand. Transferring the skills weakens their bargaining position if you suddenly have dozens more people coming into the market with your skills.
You make it sound simple - if it were, it would be happening. That makes me think it isn't. If you want 10,000 extra plumbers, sparks or chippies from where do they come? How are they trained, by whom, how long does it take?
This is what will stop Labour's (and your) housebuilding aspirations - not planning, not NIMBYs but a lack of critical specialist skills.
You're right I'm not proposing national planning of those resources, I'm proposing the opposite, getting rid of planning and letting the invisible hand deal with those resources.
I fundamentally disagree with NervysHughes, there's no shortage of trained sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc in this country. Just most of those don't work on new housing because the likes of Barratt have an oligopoly on planning consent.
As for who can train them if we need more . . . the existing sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc can and do take on apprentices.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
But you have decided that 3x an individual's salary is what the price ought to be. Sorry, @HYUFD is right, that ship sailed years ago and it isn't coming back.
The only reason its not coming back is our planning system prevents people from building houses. There is no divine reason it won't come back.
Increase supply enough and it would rapidly be back.
That was a rather good women's triathlon at the Olympics. A hard swim (at one point they were virtually stationary in the current); lots of spills on the bike leg due to the wet streets, and a good run. Well done to the winner, and another bronze for Team GB.
The men's race s up in twenty minutes or so. Only two British representatives; but Alex Yee should stand a good chance.
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
As you say, there's much more to "construction" than building houses. Sounds almost as though you are advocating some form of national planning of these resources (which I'm sure you aren't).
A lot of construction will be capital investment whether it be HS2 or roadbuilding or infrastructure work or whatever.
A lot of the skills used in construction are also required in the domestic market - a lot of people now find it hard to get a plumber or an electrician or a handy man because the pandemic forced a lot of them out of business and those remaining are swamped with work.
The pay angle is the other side - if you have a specialism which is in demand and there aren't many with the skill, the asking price goes up - remember @NerysHughes telling us how contractors in southern England were demanding hugely inflated day rates. The uncomfortable truth is shortages suit those with the skills - it keeps their rates up and their services in demand. Transferring the skills weakens their bargaining position if you suddenly have dozens more people coming into the market with your skills.
You make it sound simple - if it were, it would be happening. That makes me think it isn't. If you want 10,000 extra plumbers, sparks or chippies from where do they come? How are they trained, by whom, how long does it take?
This is what will stop Labour's (and your) housebuilding aspirations - not planning, not NIMBYs but a lack of critical specialist skills.
You're right I'm not proposing national planning of those resources, I'm proposing the opposite, getting rid of planning and letting the invisible hand deal with those resources.
I fundamentally disagree with NervysHughes, there's no shortage of trained sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc in this country. Just most of those don't work on new housing because the likes of Barratt have an oligopoly on planning consent.
As for who can train them if we need more . . . the existing sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc can and do take on apprentices.
I would just ask have you recently tried to get a sparky, plumber, or gas engineer to do work for you ?
It is almost impossible without a long delay because we do have a serious shortage in all these fields and actually need more work visas in these trades and certainly there is no prospect of Labour getting anywhere near their building targets anytime soon
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building involves externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
Heaven forfend we should build more affordable housing up north somewhere.
Almost uniquely among our peers, Britain's economic activity is concentrated in one corner. It is not sustainable. We need new towns, or at least refurbished or expanded old ones. Transport links between them would be nice too but that's off the agenda.
We need more higher paid jobs up North, more affordable homes in London and the Home Counties. Sunak, Starmer and Reeves have cancelled most of the transport links between North and South and HS2 Boris and Osborne pushed for
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.
So what? Free market.
Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
Hardly matters for the next 5 to 10 years thanks to the conservatives internal civil war
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.
So what? Free market.
Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.
I fear you're missing the point. I'm not talkiing about competition lowering the value of your house as part of a fall in overall prices, but someone deliberately making your house unsellable in order to acquire it for a song.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.
So what? Free market.
Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.
I fear you're missing the point. I'm not talkiing about competition lowering the value of your house as part of a fall in overall prices, but someone deliberately making your house unsellable in order to acquire it for a song.
How?
By building on their own land? That's competition.
What are they doing to my house? If they're sabotaging my house, that's criminal, if they're only operating on their land, that's competition.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.
So what? Free market.
Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.
I fear you're missing the point. I'm not talkiing about competition lowering the value of your house as part of a fall in overall prices, but someone deliberately making your house unsellable in order to acquire it for a song.
So, for example, someone might make their home into a halfway house for young offenders?
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
I do, England has one of the highest population densities in the world. Sure you can turn it into one giant conurbation but that would be horrible for everyone. Our infrastructure from Motorways to Doctors surgeries is overwhelmed and it would cost a kings ransom to sort (not least as the higher the population density the more costly and complex to do anything).
Immigration levels need to be set at levels that result in slight population decline overall, with a very high skills and qualifications bar.
In tandem you need to reform the benefits system so that life for those capable of work is unpleasant enough that they will take the fruit picking and caring jobs that they see as beneath them.
Also a scheme, with financial incentives, for people to leave and go to places with a fraction of our population density, like France and Republic of Ireland.
Younger pensioners caring for older ones. Makes sense.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
As you say, there's much more to "construction" than building houses. Sounds almost as though you are advocating some form of national planning of these resources (which I'm sure you aren't).
A lot of construction will be capital investment whether it be HS2 or roadbuilding or infrastructure work or whatever.
A lot of the skills used in construction are also required in the domestic market - a lot of people now find it hard to get a plumber or an electrician or a handy man because the pandemic forced a lot of them out of business and those remaining are swamped with work.
The pay angle is the other side - if you have a specialism which is in demand and there aren't many with the skill, the asking price goes up - remember @NerysHughes telling us how contractors in southern England were demanding hugely inflated day rates. The uncomfortable truth is shortages suit those with the skills - it keeps their rates up and their services in demand. Transferring the skills weakens their bargaining position if you suddenly have dozens more people coming into the market with your skills.
You make it sound simple - if it were, it would be happening. That makes me think it isn't. If you want 10,000 extra plumbers, sparks or chippies from where do they come? How are they trained, by whom, how long does it take?
This is what will stop Labour's (and your) housebuilding aspirations - not planning, not NIMBYs but a lack of critical specialist skills.
You're right I'm not proposing national planning of those resources, I'm proposing the opposite, getting rid of planning and letting the invisible hand deal with those resources.
I fundamentally disagree with NervysHughes, there's no shortage of trained sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc in this country. Just most of those don't work on new housing because the likes of Barratt have an oligopoly on planning consent.
As for who can train them if we need more . . . the existing sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc can and do take on apprentices.
The other side of this is people want a good job, the best plumbers and sparks etc will always be in demand. I can give you a couple of examples where we found local tradesmen in East London who did a fantastic job for us but when we went back to them 18 months later they couldn't accommodate us because, in the case of our electrician, he was doing a full rewiring at a £10 million house in Chelsea which could earn him far more than 20 domestic jobs in East Ham.
The best workers end up going to the projects which pay the most - whether a Barratt or Persimmon building site commands that kind of money you'd know better than I but if you get lesser quality trades you get problems and we know some newbuilds have been built well below standard. It can't just be about houses - it must be about decent houses.
Yes, some trades do take on apprentices but not all and I've no feel for how many and where. Are there people coming through who want to be apprentice electricians or plumbers? Again, I don't know. This is an area where the Government could actively and positively intervene.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
I do, England has one of the highest population densities in the world. Sure you can turn it into one giant conurbation but that would be horrible for everyone. Our infrastructure from Motorways to Doctors surgeries is overwhelmed and it would cost a kings ransom to sort (not least as the higher the population density the more costly and complex to do anything).
Immigration levels need to be set at levels that result in slight population decline overall, with a very high skills and qualifications bar.
In tandem you need to reform the benefits system so that life for those capable of work is unpleasant enough that they will take the fruit picking and caring jobs that they see as beneath them.
Also a scheme, with financial incentives, for people to leave and go to places with a fraction of our population density, like France and Republic of Ireland.
Younger pensioners caring for older ones. Makes sense.
I've just been reading through last night's thread which some have complained about as full of racism. To be honest I don't get it. There was one ambiguous remark by Leon which felt dodgy but otherwise I'm not sure what people are getting at.
Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
Hardly matters for the next 5 to 10 years thanks to the conservatives internal civil war
If Reform also eat into the Labour vote due to their failure to stop the boats, given Labour got just 33% on 4th July it certainly does
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
Hardly matters for the next 5 to 10 years thanks to the conservatives internal civil war
If Reform also eat into the Labour vote due to their failure to stop the boats, given Labour got just 33% on 4th July it certainly does
It doesn't change the fact that Labour are unassailable for 5 years
I've just been reading through last night's thread which some have complained about as full of racism. To be honest I don't get it. There was one ambiguous remark by Leon which felt dodgy but otherwise I'm not sure what people are getting at.
Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.
Are there enormous racial/cultural disparities in crime stats?
Or is crime typically committed by young people and the crime stats are representative of young person's demographics?
[I don't know the answer to this, genuine question]
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
You are plain wrong to say that four an hour each way go through Hixon in the peaks.
And in railway operational terms a branch is not a slow speed line with a short train that Beeching forgot to shut, it is what it says on the tin, a branch off the main line, which can itself have some importance (and not necessarily a dead end)
The six tracks into two is not factually incorrect except in the most pedantic, literal sense. I never claimed that there would be six tracks right up to Colwich Junction but that six tracks would turn into two through Shugborough Tunnel, because the four tracks up to Colwich would have two more HS2 tracks merging in a few miles south. Whether those HS2 tracks merge in at Colwich itself or a few miles south thereof makes virtually no difference in terms of capacity constraints (which is the issue)
Furthermore, unlike, say the Northampton Loop, the line via Hixon is near useless for relieving tbe two track stretch through Shugborough Tunnel which is why 23/27 trains per hour go through Shugborough Tunnel (including all the slow, and therefore capacity eating, freight).
At the moment those 23 trains are spread over four tracks up to Colwich, soon it will be six tracks worth of trains through the two tracks of Shugborough Tunnel when HS2 merges in a few miles south of Colwich, which means a big bottleneck is going to be much worse.
Finally: Peak Hour Trains passing through Hixon (both ways):
06.00-07.00 - Zero 07.00-08.00 - 3 (1.5 per hour each way average) 08.00-09.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 09.00-10.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
16.00-17.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 17.00-18.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 18.00-19.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 19.00-20.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 21.00-22.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
With all due respect, if wherever you looked at Realtime trains showed four an hour each way you were looking in the wrong place.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
That has nothing to do with planning though.
Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."
I've just been reading through last night's thread which some have complained about as full of racism. To be honest I don't get it. There was one ambiguous remark by Leon which felt dodgy but otherwise I'm not sure what people are getting at.
Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.
Are there enormous racial/cultural disparities in crime stats?
Or is crime typically committed by young people and the crime stats are representative of young person's demographics?
[I don't know the answer to this, genuine question]
Look at the differences between Muslim and Sikh/Hindu.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
If they intend to build the houses this should already have been done.
Now we have ooh lets say a year of site identification, then another year pssing about with feasibility and issuing contracts. Maybe 6 months for the various appeals and hey presto your housing target is looking stretched.
Assuming of course you have a trained workforce and Reeves hasnt run out of money.. Good luck to Rayner but she isnt going to do much bar bad PR on this basis. She'll issue soviet style targets and then miss them.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
I'm sure all those Israel-critics who are saying they think Israel has a right to self-defence in theory but shouldn't be fighting Hamas in Palestine and should instead take the fight to the leaders of Hamas abroad will be lining up to congratulate Israel for what they have done overnight . . .
What's interesting is that it happened in Iran. Was this guy one of the ones sunning himself in Qatar? Suggests Iran is leaky.
Yeah, he was Qatar based in Iran for the inauguration of the new President.,
Just a brief comment re: the Helter Skelter nonsense put out by a couple of posters last night. This site used to be a go to for partisan but informed debate. Reasonably knock about but the point is that it was reasonable and often very well informed. The comments last night were not acceptable. As now seems clear, the fascist right went to Southport for a paddy outside a Mosque. This is not politics, it was crime. Those talking about "sending them back" here last night fell into a very nasty, far right, rabbit hole for which there was little to no justification. Several long time posters are leaving PB because self indulgent egoists hijack threads and either genuinely post or assume a pose of supporting, nakedly racist or otherwise anti democratic crap. The site is becoming an unreadable parody of itself as a result. I would miss the old place, and appreciate the work RCS and TSE have done since the sad retirement of OGH, but unless these posters moderate themselves or get moderated, and quickly, then repeated unreadable threads will do their own work. Perhaps some may say it was some kind of joke, but it's a pretty sick joke when kids die and you are echoing EDL racist talking points.
Oh you're the PB police guy, right?
Just tell people they're being idiots and why, rather than trying to ban everything. I have no doubt your rhetorical skills are up to the job.
No he's saying that some of the posters are potentially going to drive him (having already driven many other former posters) from this site.
and I really didn't like having to point out the racist undertones many posters revealed themselves to have last night..
Fair enough then let him leave.
It's perfectly legitimate to be racist. Indicative of a failure of intelligence, of logic, of fear or of something else, all of which can helpfully be explained if anyone can be bothered. I began a reply to eg Leon yesterday but realised I couldn't be bothered in this instance.
I have been bothered several times before, however, and Leon, probably also by his own admission, benefits from when people can be bothered to tell him what an arse he's being.
@cicero should try that approach. Or indeed leave the site I'm sure he will be missed. Or perhaps not.
There are three or four seriously unpleasant racists on here. Why should those who want to talk elections and politics like Cicero and twenty or so others have to wade through their sludge in order to enjoy the pleasurable and informative parts of this site?
Most of us through family friends and other connections know people like those being traduced and it isn't pleasant. Its also a huge insult to TSE and Robert who have done an extraordinary job maintaining the site as a gem for informative conversation.
Yesterday's thread had a few really ugly posts and even worse the support of some very insideous 'likes'
Prejudice is an awful thing, I agree.
You, yourself, are full of prejudice against people who dared to vote Brexit because it inconveniences your rather privileged lifestyle with a place in France. You have made some extremely unpleasant comments about Brexit voters.
That's true. I feel towards Brexiteers what Alanbrook and Marquee Mark feel towards pinkos but they're both among my favourite posters. Can't you see the difference?
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
You are plain wrong to say that four an hour each way go through Hixon in the peaks.
And in railway operational terms a branch is not a slow speed line with a short train that Beeching forgot to shut, it is what it says on the tin, a branch off the main line, which can itself have some importance (and not necessarily a dead end)
The six tracks into two is not factually incorrect except in the most pedantic, literal sense. I never claimed that there would be six tracks right up to Colwich Junction but that six tracks would turn into two through Shugborough Tunnel, because the four tracks up to Colwich would have two more HS2 tracks merging in a few miles south. Whether those HS2 tracks merge in at Colwich itself or a few miles south thereof makes virtually no difference in terms of capacity constraints (which is the issue)
Furthermore, unlike, say the Northampton Loop, the line via Hixon is near useless for relieving tbe two track stretch through Shugborough Tunnel which is why 23/27 trains per hour go through Shugborough Tunnel (including all the slow, and therefore capacity eating, freight).
At the moment those 23 trains are spread over four tracks up to Colwich, soon it will be six tracks worth of trains through the two tracks of Shugborough Tunnel when HS2 merges in a few miles south of Colwich, which means a big bottleneck is going to be much worse.
Finally: Peak Hour Trains passing through Hixon (both ways):
06.00-07.00 - Zero 07.00-08.00 - 3 (1.5 per hour each way average) 08.00-09.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 09.00-10.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
16.00-17.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 17.00-18.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 18.00-19.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 19.00-20.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average) 21.00-22.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
With all due respect, if wherever you looked at Realtime trains showed four an hour each way you were looking in the wrong place.
Last one is 20.00 to 21.00 not 21.00 to 22.00 damn the vanilla six minute limit
If they intend to build the houses this should already have been done.
Now we have ooh lets say a year of site identification, then another year pssing about with feasibility and issuing contracts. Maybe 6 months for the bvrious appeals and hey presto your housing target is looking stretched.
Assuming of course you have a trained workforce and Reeves hasnt run out of money.. Good luck to Rayner but she isnt going to do much bar bad PR on this basis. She'll issue soviet style targets and then miss them.
You're assuming all the new housing is to be in 'new towns'.
The changes to the National Planning Policy Framework have taken place already, have they not ?
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc.
Yes, but I think (?) HYUFD's point is that the prevalence of double income families has pushed house prices up, leaving them no better off than when the family had just one (or one-and-a-bit) incomes.
As ever, it's a bit more complex than that. But I don't think HYUFD is fundamentally wrong in this. Couples have to both work now because house prices and rents are expensive; house prices and rents are expensive because house prices and rents track what people can afford; people can afford more because both husband and wife are working. And therefore both halves of the couple have to work.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
That has nothing to do with planning though.
Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."
Of course you can!
If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
As you say, there's much more to "construction" than building houses. Sounds almost as though you are advocating some form of national planning of these resources (which I'm sure you aren't).
A lot of construction will be capital investment whether it be HS2 or roadbuilding or infrastructure work or whatever.
A lot of the skills used in construction are also required in the domestic market - a lot of people now find it hard to get a plumber or an electrician or a handy man because the pandemic forced a lot of them out of business and those remaining are swamped with work.
The pay angle is the other side - if you have a specialism which is in demand and there aren't many with the skill, the asking price goes up - remember @NerysHughes telling us how contractors in southern England were demanding hugely inflated day rates. The uncomfortable truth is shortages suit those with the skills - it keeps their rates up and their services in demand. Transferring the skills weakens their bargaining position if you suddenly have dozens more people coming into the market with your skills.
You make it sound simple - if it were, it would be happening. That makes me think it isn't. If you want 10,000 extra plumbers, sparks or chippies from where do they come? How are they trained, by whom, how long does it take?
This is what will stop Labour's (and your) housebuilding aspirations - not planning, not NIMBYs but a lack of critical specialist skills.
You're right I'm not proposing national planning of those resources, I'm proposing the opposite, getting rid of planning and letting the invisible hand deal with those resources.
I fundamentally disagree with NervysHughes, there's no shortage of trained sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc in this country. Just most of those don't work on new housing because the likes of Barratt have an oligopoly on planning consent.
As for who can train them if we need more . . . the existing sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc can and do take on apprentices.
I would just ask have you recently tried to get a sparky, plumber, or gas engineer to do work for you ?
It is almost impossible without a long delay because we do have a serious shortage in all these fields and actually need more work visas in these trades and certainly there is no prospect of Labour getting anywhere near their building targets anytime soon
Maybe I am just lucky up here because I have been able to get an electrician and a plumber at relatively short notice. Working from home helps to accomodate their timing.
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
Hardly matters for the next 5 to 10 years thanks to the conservatives internal civil war
If Reform also eat into the Labour vote due to their failure to stop the boats, given Labour got just 33% on 4th July it certainly does
It doesn't change the fact that Labour are unassailable for 5 years
Not necessarily, most incumbent governments across the western world are unpopular and Starmer Labour start on a 10% lower voteshare already than the 43% Blair and New Labour got in 1997
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc.
Yes, but I think (?) HYUFD's point is that the prevalence of double income families has pushed house prices up, leaving them no better off than when the family had just one (or one-and-a-bit) incomes.
As ever, it's a bit more complex than that. But I don't think HYUFD is fundamentally wrong in this. Couples have to both work now because house prices and rents are expensive; house prices and rents are expensive because house prices and rents track what people can afford; people can afford more because both husband and wife are working. And therefore both halves of the couple have to work.
Only because supply of housing is restricted.
Lift the restrictions and supply and demand would reach a new equilibrium.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
Absolutely it adds pressure on house prices as we would need double the number of homes as we had in 1950 even built to get the same house price to income ration if both partners are in paid work as they were not then.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.
So what? Free market.
Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.
I fear you're missing the point. I'm not talkiing about competition lowering the value of your house as part of a fall in overall prices, but someone deliberately making your house unsellable in order to acquire it for a song.
So, for example, someone might make their home into a halfway house for young offenders?
I once trolled a local facebook group who were in Full Nimby Froth mode about a plan for an old peoples home on a disused allotment; telling them that due to the objections the scheme had been cancelled and a hostel for newly released sex offenders would be built instead (said disused allotment was next to the Scout Hut).
It was epic.
A colleg said that I shouldn't be allowed on social media (when he finally stopped laughing).
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
Absolutely it adds pressure on house prices as we would need double the number of homes as we had in 1950 even built to get the same house price to income ration if both partners are in paid work as they were not then.
So double the number of homes then. What's wrong with that?
Though it won't require double, supply and demand doesn't work that way.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being homemakers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Heaven forfend we should build more affordable housing up north somewhere.
Almost uniquely among our peers, Britain's economic activity is concentrated in one corner. It is not sustainable. We need new towns, or at least refurbished or expanded old ones. Transport links between them would be nice too but that's off the agenda.
We need more higher paid jobs up North, more affordable homes in London and the Home Counties. Sunak, Starmer and Reeves have cancelled most of the transport links between North and South and HS2 Boris and Osborne pushed for
Higher pay requires better skillsets.
Higher standards of living requires more affordable housing.
Better skillsets, more affordable housing.
That's what is required.
Not 'world beating', 'biggest in Europe' prestige projects.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being homemakers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Families are going to be an issue in the US election as well, with one side in favour of Americans having large families, and the other side in favour of abortion and immigration.
Hungary has introduced freedom of movement into the EU for Russians.
https://x.com/ArturRehi/status/1818426862911070692 Following the visit of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to Moscow, Budapest included citizens of the Russian Federation and Belarus in the so-called "national card" program, which is issued to those wishing to work in Hungary for two years with the possibility of extension. No special checks are carried out on the European level for holders of the "national card", notes the German publication RND. Viktor Orban simplified entry for these citizens in early July, and for several weeks now, Russian citizens have been entering the EU without hindrance...
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
Hardly matters for the next 5 to 10 years thanks to the conservatives internal civil war
Don't agree.
What we have seen in recent years is big-time voter volatility.
We've gone from Boris the world-king, master of all he surveys, to Sir Keir with an unprecedented majority on a remarkably low vote-share, in just a few years. Could easily unwind (again).
Tory civil war? Who knows? They may surprise.
My guess is if there was a by-election in the near future there are plenty of seats where the winners could likely be Reform. If they get momentum who knows what the consequences could be.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being home makers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Far more Mothers hate and despise the current situation of having to work full time than hated the previous situation of not working / part time working of mothers being the norm.
As ever, a noisy unsatisfied minority ruined it for the rest, to the enrichment of corporations who could get away with cutting wages with both partners working and estate agents who could jack up house prices with both partners working.
In the process we have cratered the reproduction rate with a disproportionate number of those children that are born, the offspring of feckless, low IQ types that will be a higher burden on the state.
I've just been reading through last night's thread which some have complained about as full of racism. To be honest I don't get it. There was one ambiguous remark by Leon which felt dodgy but otherwise I'm not sure what people are getting at.
Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.
What are those differences. Can you show some statistics?
f there is a recognition growing the economy and building 300,000 dwellings per year is a requirement and if we can't source the capacity to do this from within our own population, then we need skilled labour or labour to whom we can give the skills whether it's a plumber, a sparks or a chippy or whatever.
None of this has changed with the change of Government and if there are solutions, they won't be quick or easy. I suppose there's a choice - insularity, a tough immigration policy (one in, one out?), an assertion of traditional values and identity combined with heavy policing of some immigrant areas but with a recognition economic growth and progress will be sluggish at best or a more open approach where people come, work and improve the economy but with the recognition the social and cultural impacts of such a policy won't be uniformly positive and a cohesive society might be one of the casualties.
Neither option is attractive.
I have nothing against immigration and if more people want to come to this country, I couldn't care less, we just need commensurate investment to keep up. But this is a myth that we can't source the capacity in this country, we can. What people mean when they say they can't is they can't source it at the price they'd like to pay.
We have 3 million people working in the construction sector in this country. It doesn't take 10 people an entire year of full time work to build a single house.
Obviously the construction sector goes beyond constructing homes, but skills are mostly transferable as well as people being able to train in new skills if the pay is appropriate.
As you say, there's much more to "construction" than building houses. Sounds almost as though you are advocating some form of national planning of these resources (which I'm sure you aren't).
A lot of construction will be capital investment whether it be HS2 or roadbuilding or infrastructure work or whatever.
A lot of the skills used in construction are also required in the domestic market - a lot of people now find it hard to get a plumber or an electrician or a handy man because the pandemic forced a lot of them out of business and those remaining are swamped with work.
The pay angle is the other side - if you have a specialism which is in demand and there aren't many with the skill, the asking price goes up - remember @NerysHughes telling us how contractors in southern England were demanding hugely inflated day rates. The uncomfortable truth is shortages suit those with the skills - it keeps their rates up and their services in demand. Transferring the skills weakens their bargaining position if you suddenly have dozens more people coming into the market with your skills.
You make it sound simple - if it were, it would be happening. That makes me think it isn't. If you want 10,000 extra plumbers, sparks or chippies from where do they come? How are they trained, by whom, how long does it take?
This is what will stop Labour's (and your) housebuilding aspirations - not planning, not NIMBYs but a lack of critical specialist skills.
You're right I'm not proposing national planning of those resources, I'm proposing the opposite, getting rid of planning and letting the invisible hand deal with those resources.
I fundamentally disagree with NervysHughes, there's no shortage of trained sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc in this country. Just most of those don't work on new housing because the likes of Barratt have an oligopoly on planning consent.
As for who can train them if we need more . . . the existing sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc can and do take on apprentices.
I would just ask have you recently tried to get a sparky, plumber, or gas engineer to do work for you ?
It is almost impossible without a long delay because we do have a serious shortage in all these fields and actually need more work visas in these trades and certainly there is no prospect of Labour getting anywhere near their building targets anytime soon
I got one at an hours notice. By God it was expensive though.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
That has nothing to do with planning though.
Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."
Of course you can!
If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.
You are, untypically, but perhaps wilfully missing the point.
Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).
Building houses (like playing loud music) involves externalities, indeed are externalities and hence need regulation.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being home makers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Far more Mothers hate and despise the current situation of having to work full time than hated the previous situation of not working / part time working of mothers being the norm...
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
That has nothing to do with planning though.
Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."
Of course you can!
If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.
You are, untypically, but perhaps wilfully missing the point.
Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).
Not your usual ruthlessly logical self.
Yes, I propose abolishing planning rules, not noise pollution rules.
I'm in favour of rules against pollution (which includes noise pollution), as well as building regulations, but that whatever people want to do on their own land within the law that meets regulations should be permitted no questions asked.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being home makers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Far more Mothers hate and despise the current situation of having to work full time than hated the previous situation of not working / part time working of mothers being the norm.
As ever, a noisy unsatisfied minority ruined it for the rest, to the enrichment of corporations who could get away with cutting wages with both partners working and estate agents who could jack up house prices with both partners working.
In the process we have cratered the reproduction rate with a disproportionate number of those children that are born, the offspring of feckless, low IQ types that will be a higher burden on the state.
I largely agree with this, though I'd question the second half of the second paragraph.
We largely fought and lost this argument 25 years ago. Because those arguing for the other side couldn't see why you might not want to work. They all had nice jobs working in shiny offices and talking on the radio and were ebullient about the opportunity for women to have exciting jobs like they did. Few people ever made the argument about the wonderful opportunity that the modern world had afforded women of spending 12 hour days working in an Amazon warehouse.
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
Hardly matters for the next 5 to 10 years thanks to the conservatives internal civil war
I would expect such a swing but I'm not sure to what extent, which is why the time to act on this is now. One of the benefits will be something of a restraint on housing as unearned wealth driving prices and preventing an efficient market / more efficient housing stock usage.
There are a number of things in the mix - Council Tax, iHT, CGT, Stamp Duty, Lifetime Gifts, tax arrangements for Trusts (currently iirc 6% once a decade), privileging of main residence, Commercial vs Personal ownership of property and others.
Some of it is blatantly in need of reform; other aspects have been left alone to rot.
There are also tie ins to things like transport policy.
I think we need a change of the terms of trade - in both tax on revenue and tax on capital.
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise
I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.
She says she was in McDonald's in King's Lynn when she found out she'd lost her seat, which is why she was late getting to the count for the declaration.
At least Reeves will be able to look at London as an excellent source of tax revenue as she amends IHT rules in Oct
If she does that and imposes massive inheritance tax rises then I would expect a big swing from Labour back to the Tories in suburban London and the Home Counties especially
Hardly matters for the next 5 to 10 years thanks to the conservatives internal civil war
If Reform also eat into the Labour vote due to their failure to stop the boats, given Labour got just 33% on 4th July it certainly does
It doesn't change the fact that Labour are unassailable for 5 years
Not necessarily, most incumbent governments across the western world are unpopular and Starmer Labour start on a 10% lower voteshare already than the 43% Blair and New Labour got in 1997
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise
I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.
I seem to recall Walter Mondale being mentioned as a guide to how Harris would perform.
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise
I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.
Can not will. Biden, health wise the same as 2020, would still be a better candidate than Harris and if she does win it will largely be down to her picking a VP nominee like Shapiro who can win a key swing state that puts her over the top in the EC
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being home makers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Far more Mothers hate and despise the current situation of having to work full time than hated the previous situation of not working / part time working of mothers being the norm...
Have you polled them ?
Anecdotal, but most of the part time teachers at my school are women coming back after maternity leave on reduced hours. Some fathers as well, but far fewer. Other reasons for being part time: Small subject with not enough classes to justify a full time teacher; Recovering from illness; Winding down before retirement.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
I don't think I've ever seen a more creative list of other people who's fault it was (including sundry institutions, a level crossing for making her late, and the Returning Officer for preventing her making a speech); I can't see that she has resiled from a single thing.
TBH she sounds like General Paulus in about 1953, spending his declining years explaining why Stalingrad was not his responsibility. Imo the difference is that he had some reasonable excuses.
You actually think that she should have ignored centuries of convention, and the returning officer, and barged her way to the front to make an unprecedented loser's speech? You'd have squealed with indignation if that had happened. Some people here are pitiably twisted in their Truss hatred.
I think you need to try a bit harder. Unprecedented loser's speech?
Formally it's in the discretion of the Returning Officer. I've watched hundreds of count announcements, and runners up not making speeches is rare iirc. I can't recall where that has not happened. Anyone else?
A former PM being prevented from making such a concession speech? Cloud-cuckoo land. As an agricultural area, there should lots of pigs in Downham Market - perhaps some can fly.
There's only one person who has put La Truss where she is now. The first thing she needs to do is look in the mirror.
If would have been unprecedented in a constituency where they don't do losers speeches. Did the returning officer announce her and then look blank as she stalked off? Or were they ushered away in the same way they always do it. You are suggesting that she should have pulled rank and done a speech anyway because??
It's you and your excuses for your own boorish vituperation that are pathetic. And perhaps it's you who should take a good look in the mirror.
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise
I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.
I seem to recall Walter Mondale being mentioned as a guide to how Harris would perform.
Has she done any serious interviews in the past week? When the media is running 24/7 on how wonderful she is, with no challenge on policy or the economy, and ignoring that they spent most of the past four years roasting her, it’s not surprising that we are where we are this week.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being home makers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Far more Mothers hate and despise the current situation of having to work full time than hated the previous situation of not working / part time working of mothers being the norm...
Have you polled them ?
Anecdotal, but most of the part time teachers at my school are women coming back after maternity leave on reduced hours. Some fathers as well, but far fewer. Other reasons for being part time: Small subject with not enough classes to justify a full time teacher; Recovering from illness; Winding down before retirement.
How often is that part of a portfolio second career?
eg combined with supply, another role elsewhere, private tuition, writing, exam marking etc?
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
That has nothing to do with planning though.
Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."
Of course you can!
If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.
You are, untypically, but perhaps wilfully missing the point.
Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).
Not your usual ruthlessly logical self.
Yes, I propose abolishing planning rules, not noise pollution rules.
I'm in favour of rules against pollution (which includes noise pollution), as well as building regulations, but that whatever people want to do on their own land within the law that meets regulations should be permitted no questions asked.
Whatever is not forbidden is lawful.
What's illogical about that?
Well if you are in favour of building regulations then we don't have a problem.
You said:
"Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him."
But it is not up to him. It is up to whatever the building regulations say he can do. Which is not very much these days. I thought that you were not in favour of such building regulations but now you seem to be.
It appears that you have come full circle in your views about what should and shouldn't be allowed "on your own land". And/or you will have to explain to me the difference between building regulations and planning laws.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.
Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
That has nothing to do with planning though.
Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."
Of course you can!
If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.
You are, untypically, but perhaps wilfully missing the point.
Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).
Not your usual ruthlessly logical self.
Yes, I propose abolishing planning rules, not noise pollution rules.
I'm in favour of rules against pollution (which includes noise pollution), as well as building regulations, but that whatever people want to do on their own land within the law that meets regulations should be permitted no questions asked.
Whatever is not forbidden is lawful.
What's illogical about that?
But you don’t think anyone has a right to light, for example?
I've just been reading through last night's thread which some have complained about as full of racism. To be honest I don't get it. There was one ambiguous remark by Leon which felt dodgy but otherwise I'm not sure what people are getting at.
Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.
Are there enormous racial/cultural disparities in crime stats?
Or is crime typically committed by young people and the crime stats are representative of young person's demographics?
[I don't know the answer to this, genuine question]
The biggest predictor for crime is sex.
Incidentally, this week a 34 year old man was spared jail after being convicted of attacking a woman who rejected his sexual advances. He punched her repeatedly and slashed her across the face, stomach and chest. He did not plead guilty. He also threatened to kill her or have others kill her.
The judge started his sentencing remarks by saying that he did not want to send him to jail. Why not? This sort of behaviour is exactly what needs to lead to a jail sentence. Or are we safe to assume that a man who flies into a rage when a woman rejects his advances will never do it again?
Court delays and a lack of prison places were part of the reason the judge suspended the sentence.
Labour is pledging to halve violence against women and girls. It is going to have to invest in the criminal justice system and prison places if it really means this.
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise
I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.
Can not will. Biden, health wise the same as 2020, would still be a better candidate than Harris and if she does win it will largely be down to her picking a VP nominee like Shapiro who can win a key swing state that puts her over the top in the EC
You do make me laugh. As I said, a few weeks ago you had written off Harris as a complete no-hoper. Now, you have moved massively to say she can win. I never said that you said she will win.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
I've just been reading through last night's thread which some have complained about as full of racism. To be honest I don't get it. There was one ambiguous remark by Leon which felt dodgy but otherwise I'm not sure what people are getting at.
Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.
Are there enormous racial/cultural disparities in crime stats?
Or is crime typically committed by young people and the crime stats are representative of young person's demographics?
[I don't know the answer to this, genuine question]
The biggest predictor for crime is sex.
Incidentally, this week a 34 year old man was spared jail after being convicted of attacking a woman who rejected his sexual advances. He punched her repeatedly and slashed her across the face, stomach and chest. He did not plead guilty. He also threatened to kill her or have others kill her.
The judge started his sentencing remarks by saying that he did not want to send him to jail. Why not? This sort of behaviour is exactly what needs to lead to a jail sentence. Or are we safe to assume that a man who flies into a rage when a woman rejects his advances will never do it again?
Court delays and a lack of prison places were part of the reason the judge suspended the sentence.
Labour is pledging to halve violence against women and girls. It is going to have to invest in the criminal justice system and prison places if it really means this.
That is shocking. I hope that there is an unduly lenient sentence appeal.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
Women work for pin money? Haven't heard that (outside the USA) for a loooooong time.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
Meloni in Italy has been pushing and supporting stay at home mothers too.
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being home makers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Far more Mothers hate and despise the current situation of having to work full time than hated the previous situation of not working / part time working of mothers being the norm...
Have you polled them ?
Anecdotal, but most of the part time teachers at my school are women coming back after maternity leave on reduced hours. Some fathers as well, but far fewer. Other reasons for being part time: Small subject with not enough classes to justify a full time teacher; Recovering from illness; Winding down before retirement.
How often is that part of a portfolio second career?
eg combined with supply, another role elsewhere, private tuition, writing, exam marking etc?
Sometimes. Most teachers don’t have the time during term to do other things unless they have been teaching a long time and don’t need to put hours into planning and marking, but I think we had two teachers last year who were doing something else as well, one of which was working on a website that paid him as much as he was earning in school (and the website was to with learning Languages before anybody gets any ideas!)
Comments
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
The UK's population growth is not exceptionally significant. There is no reason, besides our Byzantine planning regulations that forbid people without permission from building homes, that we can not build enough homes to more than keep up with both population and demographic changes.
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
But worse than that it's just ugly. There are lots of sites where racists can exchange stories why they should hate various of their fellow creatures but the reason why we're here and not there is because it isn't something most of us are interested in
A lot of construction will be capital investment whether it be HS2 or roadbuilding or infrastructure work or whatever.
A lot of the skills used in construction are also required in the domestic market - a lot of people now find it hard to get a plumber or an electrician or a handy man because the pandemic forced a lot of them out of business and those remaining are swamped with work.
The pay angle is the other side - if you have a specialism which is in demand and there aren't many with the skill, the asking price goes up - remember @NerysHughes telling us how contractors in southern England were demanding hugely inflated day rates. The uncomfortable truth is shortages suit those with the skills - it keeps their rates up and their services in demand. Transferring the skills weakens their bargaining position if you suddenly have dozens more people coming into the market with your skills.
You make it sound simple - if it were, it would be happening. That makes me think it isn't. If you want 10,000 extra plumbers, sparks or chippies from where do they come? How are they trained, by whom, how long does it take?
This is what will stop Labour's (and your) housebuilding aspirations - not planning, not NIMBYs but a lack of critical specialist skills.
Immigration levels need to be set at levels that result in slight population decline overall, with a very high skills and qualifications bar.
In tandem you need to reform the benefits system so that life for those capable of work is unpleasant enough that they will take the fruit picking and caring jobs that they see as beneath them.
Also a scheme, with financial incentives, for people to leave and go to places with a fraction of our population density, like France and Republic of Ireland.
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
Its why we need to be a little bit careful not to overdo this.
I fundamentally disagree with NervysHughes, there's no shortage of trained sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc in this country. Just most of those don't work on new housing because the likes of Barratt have an oligopoly on planning consent.
As for who can train them if we need more . . . the existing sparkies, plumbers, chippies etc can and do take on apprentices.
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Increase supply enough and it would rapidly be back.
The men's race s up in twenty minutes or so. Only two British representatives; but Alex Yee should stand a good chance.
Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.
It is almost impossible without a long delay because we do have a serious shortage in all these fields and actually need more work visas in these trades and certainly there is no prospect of Labour getting anywhere near their building targets anytime soon
Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.
Building involves externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.
Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.
If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.
That has nothing to do with planning though.
By building on their own land? That's competition.
What are they doing to my house? If they're sabotaging my house, that's criminal, if they're only operating on their land, that's competition.
If both members of a couple are working full time then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
The best workers end up going to the projects which pay the most - whether a Barratt or Persimmon building site commands that kind of money you'd know better than I but if you get lesser quality trades you get problems and we know some newbuilds have been built well below standard. It can't just be about houses - it must be about decent houses.
Yes, some trades do take on apprentices but not all and I've no feel for how many and where. Are there people coming through who want to be apprentice electricians or plumbers? Again, I don't know. This is an area where the Government could actively and positively intervene.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jul/31/labour-housing-angela-rayner-conservatives-tories-uk-politics-latest
Michael Lyons is an interesting choice. He is probably better qualified than most to get on with the job without delay.
See this interview from a year ago.
Why partnerships are key to fixing the housing crisis: an interview with Sir Michael Lyons
https://www.building.co.uk/building-the-future-commission/why-partnerships-are-key-to-fixing-the-housing-crisis-an-interview-with-sir-michael-lyons/5123319.article
I think Labour actually mean business on this.
Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.
Or is crime typically committed by young people and the crime stats are representative of young person's demographics?
[I don't know the answer to this, genuine question]
And in railway operational terms a branch is not a slow speed line with a short train that Beeching forgot to shut, it is what it says on the tin, a branch off the main line, which can itself have some importance (and not necessarily a dead end)
The six tracks into two is not factually incorrect except in the most pedantic, literal sense. I never claimed that there would be six tracks right up to Colwich Junction but that six tracks would turn into two through Shugborough Tunnel, because the four tracks up to Colwich would have two more HS2 tracks merging in a few miles south. Whether those HS2 tracks merge in at Colwich itself or a few miles south thereof makes virtually no difference in terms of capacity constraints (which is the issue)
Furthermore, unlike, say the Northampton Loop, the line via Hixon is near useless for relieving tbe two track stretch through Shugborough Tunnel which is why 23/27 trains per hour go through Shugborough Tunnel (including all the slow, and therefore capacity eating, freight).
At the moment those 23 trains are spread over four tracks up to Colwich, soon it will be six tracks worth of trains through the two tracks of Shugborough Tunnel when HS2 merges in a few miles south of Colwich, which means a big bottleneck is going to be much worse.
Finally: Peak Hour Trains passing through Hixon (both ways):
06.00-07.00 - Zero
07.00-08.00 - 3 (1.5 per hour each way average)
08.00-09.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
09.00-10.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
16.00-17.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
17.00-18.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
18.00-19.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
19.00-20.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
21.00-22.00 - 4 (2 per hour each way average)
With all due respect, if wherever you looked at Realtime trains showed four an hour each way you were looking in the wrong place.
In reality many couples work full time just to survive economically, pay the *rent*, etc. etc. thanks to the inflation of house prices and rents caused over the last 14 years.
If they intend to build the houses this should already have been done.
Now we have ooh lets say a year of site identification, then another year pssing about with feasibility and issuing contracts. Maybe 6 months for the various appeals and hey presto your housing target is looking stretched.
Assuming of course you have a trained workforce and Reeves hasnt run out of money.. Good luck to Rayner but she isnt going to do much bar bad PR on this basis. She'll issue soviet style targets and then miss them.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
The changes to the National Planning Policy Framework have taken place already, have they not ?
As ever, it's a bit more complex than that. But I don't think HYUFD is fundamentally wrong in this. Couples have to both work now because house prices and rents are expensive; house prices and rents are expensive because house prices and rents track what people can afford; people can afford more because both husband and wife are working. And therefore both halves of the couple have to work.
If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?
If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.
Lift the restrictions and supply and demand would reach a new equilibrium.
It was epic.
A colleg said that I shouldn't be allowed on social media (when he finally stopped laughing).
Though it won't require double, supply and demand doesn't work that way.
Or more double standards?
The reality is the quickest way for house prices and rents to fall would be most mothers (or a few fathers) giving up full time paid work and returning to being homemakers as well as a drastic fall in immigration, not just more affordable homes being built alone.
Higher standards of living requires more affordable housing.
Better skillsets, more affordable housing.
That's what is required.
Not 'world beating', 'biggest in Europe' prestige projects.
https://x.com/ArturRehi/status/1818426862911070692
Following the visit of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to Moscow, Budapest included citizens of the Russian Federation and Belarus in the so-called "national card" program, which is issued to those wishing to work in Hungary for two years with the possibility of extension. No special checks are carried out on the European level for holders of the "national card", notes the German publication RND. Viktor Orban simplified entry for these citizens in early July, and for several weeks now, Russian citizens have been entering the EU without hindrance...
Surprisingly little comment on this.
What we have seen in recent years is big-time voter volatility.
We've gone from Boris the world-king, master of all he surveys, to Sir Keir with an unprecedented majority on a remarkably low vote-share, in just a few years. Could easily unwind (again).
Tory civil war? Who knows? They may surprise.
My guess is if there was a by-election in the near future there are plenty of seats where the winners could likely be Reform. If they get momentum who knows what the consequences could be.
We live in febrile times.
As ever, a noisy unsatisfied minority ruined it for the rest, to the enrichment of corporations who could get away with cutting wages with both partners working and estate agents who could jack up house prices with both partners working.
In the process we have cratered the reproduction rate with a disproportionate number of those children that are born, the offspring of feckless, low IQ types that will be a higher burden on the state.
Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).
Building houses (like playing loud music) involves externalities, indeed are externalities and hence need regulation.
Not your usual ruthlessly logical self.
I'm in favour of rules against pollution (which includes noise pollution), as well as building regulations, but that whatever people want to do on their own land within the law that meets regulations should be permitted no questions asked.
Whatever is not forbidden is lawful.
What's illogical about that?
We largely fought and lost this argument 25 years ago. Because those arguing for the other side couldn't see why you might not want to work. They all had nice jobs working in shiny offices and talking on the radio and were ebullient about the opportunity for women to have exciting jobs like they did. Few people ever made the argument about the wonderful opportunity that the modern world had afforded women of spending 12 hour days working in an Amazon warehouse.
There are a number of things in the mix - Council Tax, iHT, CGT, Stamp Duty, Lifetime Gifts, tax arrangements for Trusts (currently iirc 6% once a decade), privileging of main residence, Commercial vs Personal ownership of property and others.
Some of it is blatantly in need of reform; other aspects have been left alone to rot.
There are also tie ins to things like transport policy.
I think we need a change of the terms of trade - in both tax on revenue and tax on capital.
I hope it is considered carefully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIjg0ow4UW4
She says she was in McDonald's in King's Lynn when she found out she'd lost her seat, which is why she was late getting to the count for the declaration.
Other reasons for being part time:
Small subject with not enough classes to justify a full time teacher;
Recovering from illness;
Winding down before retirement.
It's you and your excuses for your own boorish vituperation that are pathetic. And perhaps it's you who should take a good look in the mirror.
eg combined with supply, another role elsewhere, private tuition, writing, exam marking etc?
You said:
"Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him."
But it is not up to him. It is up to whatever the building regulations say he can do. Which is not very much these days. I thought that you were not in favour of such building regulations but now you seem to be.
It appears that you have come full circle in your views about what should and shouldn't be allowed "on your own land". And/or you will have to explain to me the difference between building regulations and planning laws.
Incidentally, this week a 34 year old man was spared jail after being convicted of attacking a woman who rejected his sexual advances. He punched her repeatedly and slashed her across the face, stomach and chest. He did not plead guilty. He also threatened to kill her or have others kill her.
The judge started his sentencing remarks by saying that he did not want to send him to jail. Why not? This sort of behaviour is exactly what needs to lead to a jail sentence. Or are we safe to assume that a man who flies into a rage when a woman rejects his advances will never do it again?
Court delays and a lack of prison places were part of the reason the judge suspended the sentence.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/eastenders-actor-harry-rafferty-wood-green-crown-court-jail-camden-knife-b1173733.html
Labour is pledging to halve violence against women and girls. It is going to have to invest in the criminal justice system and prison places if it really means this.
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire