The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
I agree Labour has done nothing to improve supply.
However, even if they had done everything that you and I would suggest needs to be done, then I doubt the chart would look very different. Simply: the vast majority of the homes that have become available since June 2024 began construction under the previous government. The question -really- is have housing starts (i.e. construction beginning) improved, because measuring the finished product after such a short period of time is a bit of a cheat.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
I agree Labour has done nothing to improve supply.
However, even if they had done everything that you and I would suggest needs to be done, then I doubt the chart would look very different. Simply: the vast majority of the homes that have become available since June 2024 were started under the previous government. The question -really- is have housing starts (i.e. construction beginning) improved, because measuring the finished product after such a short period of time is a bit of a cheat.
Oh I completely agree with that.
Which is why I said said it is a bigger issue, that nothing has been done to improve the situation in future years.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
On the other hand, that convention is not widely known. So for the Tories to put that forward innocently is like claiming that Tory pronouncements about inflation slowing were correct, when they were failing - to put it politely - to acknowledge that many in the public entirely understandably can't tell the difference between [edit] x, f(x) and f'(x).
I mean, even Scottish Labour couldn't understand what the equivalent, '[...]', in a quotation meant. Or claimed not to.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
I disagree. The “zig zag” is a sale, or axis, break, which is very common in specialised contexts. But data visualisation needs to serve fundamentally different audiences with different needs, knowledge bases, and attention spans in public vs specialist contexts. Specialist audiences share disciplinary knowledge of standard visual conventions in their field. They can interpret complex encodings like log scales, or axis breaks, without explanation. Public audiences lack this shared foundation, so visualisation should use intuitive visual metaphors and limit jargon. This one utilises such visual jargon, making it as bad as a Lib Dem bar chart.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
On the other hand, that convention is not widely known. So for the Tories to put that forward innocently is like claiming that Tory pronouncements about inflation slowing were correct, when they were failing - to put it politely - to acknowledge that many in the public entirely understandably can't tell the difference between x, f(x) and f''(x).
I mean, even Scottish Labour couldn't understand what the equivalent, '[...]', in a quotation meant. Or claimed not to.
Sorry but that's just pathetic to claim that something that is entirely accurate and follows all conventions is wrong, because people are too thick to understand things that have been done correctly.
Now will it make anyone vote differently? That's an entirely different question and where x, f(x) and f''(x) matters.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
On the other hand, that convention is not widely known. So for the Tories to put that forward innocently is like claiming that Tory pronouncements about inflation slowing were correct, when they were failing - to put it politely - to acknowledge that many in the public entirely understandably can't tell the difference between x, f(x) and f''(x).
I mean, even Scottish Labour couldn't understand what the equivalent, '[...]', in a quotation meant. Or claimed not to.
Sorry but that's just pathetic to claim that something that is entirely accurate and follows all conventions is wrong, because people are too thick to understand things that have been done correctly.
Now will it make anyone vote differently? That's an entirely different question and where x, f(x) and f''(x) matters.
I didn't say it was wrong. I did suggest it was malicious to put it forward in the wider public context. Different audiences need different levels of specialist terminology.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
On the other hand, that convention is not widely known. So for the Tories to put that forward innocently is like claiming that Tory pronouncements about inflation slowing were correct, when they were failing - to put it politely - to acknowledge that many in the public entirely understandably can't tell the difference between [edit] x, f(x) and f'(x).
I mean, even Scottish Labour couldn't understand what the equivalent, '[...]', in a quotation meant. Or claimed not to.
We learned the zig zag in Junior School. Are you sure it's not well-known?
It is, of course, misleading, even if technically correct. But not as bad as a LibDem special.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
On the other hand, that convention is not widely known. So for the Tories to put that forward innocently is like claiming that Tory pronouncements about inflation slowing were correct, when they were failing - to put it politely - to acknowledge that many in the public entirely understandably can't tell the difference between [edit] x, f(x) and f'(x).
I mean, even Scottish Labour couldn't understand what the equivalent, '[...]', in a quotation meant. Or claimed not to.
We learned the zig zag in Junior School. Are you sure it's not well-known?
It is, of course, misleading, even if technically correct. But not as bad as a LibDem special.
Yes, but you remember it, which to my mind seems unusual ... anyway, it will be interesting to see what opinions others have.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
I disagree. The “zig zag” is a sale, or axis, break, which is very common in specialised contexts. But data visualisation needs to serve fundamentally different audiences with different needs, knowledge bases, and attention spans in public vs specialist contexts. Specialist audiences share disciplinary knowledge of standard visual conventions in their field. They can interpret complex encodings like log scales, or axis breaks, without explanation. Public audiences lack this shared foundation, so visualisation should use intuitive visual metaphors and limit jargon. This one utilises such visual jargon, making it as bad as a Lib Dem bar chart.
Something can be both technically accurate and extremely misleading. See most political bar charts.
(The wider issue is that a lot of what happened in 2024/5 wasn't really Labour's responsibility. The first three months were the fag end of the Sunak government, and the remaining nine were mostly under their policy shadow. It takes longer then we are mostly prepared to admit for a new government to make more than superfical changes, and longer still for those changes to feed through to everyday life. That excuse is real, but wearing thin now.)
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
I disagree. The “zig zag” is a sale, or axis, break, which is very common in specialised contexts. But data visualisation needs to serve fundamentally different audiences with different needs, knowledge bases, and attention spans in public vs specialist contexts. Specialist audiences share disciplinary knowledge of standard visual conventions in their field. They can interpret complex encodings like log scales, or axis breaks, without explanation. Public audiences lack this shared foundation, so visualisation should use intuitive visual metaphors and limit jargon. This one utilises such visual jargon, making it as bad as a Lib Dem bar chart.
The zig zag is very common in almost all contexts that regularly use bar charts, which is why its taught at school, its not something you need a diploma for.
Which makes those who omit it all the more egregious.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
Builders can only slow down if they don't face competition, which is only the case because of our broken planning system, which the Government claimed they would fix in their manifesto.
Perhaps I haven't been following this conspiracy theory, but:
1) Utah is a long way from both California and Minnesota.
2) Why would the Frogs want to kill a man hardly known outside the USA, who never seemed bothered about France?
It was a test run to assassinate Candace Owens for saying Mrs Macron is a guy, here's one tweet from her feed but there are quite a few others.
🚨 URGENT
Two days ago I was contacted by a high-ranking employee of the French Government. After determining this person’s position and proximity to the French couple, I have deemed the information they gave me to be credible enough to share publicly in the event that something happens.
In short, this person claims that the Macrons have executed upon and paid for my assassination. Yes, you read that correctly. More specifically, that the green light was given to a small team in National Gendamarie Intervention Group. I am told there is one Israeli that is on this assasination squad and the plans were formalized.
Again, this person provided concrete proof that they are well placed within the French government apparatus.
Further to this point, this person claims that Charlie Kirk’s assassin trained with the French legion 13th brigade with multi-state involvement.
Journalist Xavier Poussard’s life is also at risk. This is deadly serious. The head of state of France apparently wants us both dead and has authorized professional units to carry this out.
I ask that every person RETWEET and share this.
I do not know who in the American government can be trusted, since this source claims our leaders are aware. But I have more specific information which is definitively verifiable, should they care to reach out to me.
To the brave official in France who did this because they were so moved by the evil of Charlie’s public execution to risk their own life— May God bless you. Truly.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
Exactly why I said the builders will only build them if they can sell at a profit. If they are not going to make a profit then they will slow down.
Housing is very cyclical and undeniably economic growth is slowing. Surely this is just what we would expect housing demand to do in a slowing economy?
(I have sold down my housing stocks in my portfolio for this reason).
Perhaps I haven't been following this conspiracy theory, but:
1) Utah is a long way from both California and Minnesota.
2) Why would the Frogs want to kill a man hardly known outside the USA, who never seemed bothered about France?
It was a test run to assassinate Candace Owens for saying Mrs Macron is a guy, here's one tweet from her feed but there are quite a few others.
🚨 URGENT
Two days ago I was contacted by a high-ranking employee of the French Government. After determining this person’s position and proximity to the French couple, I have deemed the information they gave me to be credible enough to share publicly in the event that something happens.
In short, this person claims that the Macrons have executed upon and paid for my assassination. Yes, you read that correctly. More specifically, that the green light was given to a small team in National Gendamarie Intervention Group. I am told there is one Israeli that is on this assasination squad and the plans were formalized.
Again, this person provided concrete proof that they are well placed within the French government apparatus.
Further to this point, this person claims that Charlie Kirk’s assassin trained with the French legion 13th brigade with multi-state involvement.
Journalist Xavier Poussard’s life is also at risk. This is deadly serious. The head of state of France apparently wants us both dead and has authorized professional units to carry this out.
I ask that every person RETWEET and share this.
I do not know who in the American government can be trusted, since this source claims our leaders are aware. But I have more specific information which is definitively verifiable, should they care to reach out to me.
To the brave official in France who did this because they were so moved by the evil of Charlie’s public execution to risk their own life— May God bless you. Truly.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
I disagree. The “zig zag” is a sale, or axis, break, which is very common in specialised contexts. But data visualisation needs to serve fundamentally different audiences with different needs, knowledge bases, and attention spans in public vs specialist contexts. Specialist audiences share disciplinary knowledge of standard visual conventions in their field. They can interpret complex encodings like log scales, or axis breaks, without explanation. Public audiences lack this shared foundation, so visualisation should use intuitive visual metaphors and limit jargon. This one utilises such visual jargon, making it as bad as a Lib Dem bar chart.
I remember being taught about the 'zig zag' in my not-very-advanced classes in a bog-standard school. Log scales were never mentioned - I admit - which is becoming more of an issue. But the 'squiggly line means someone is on the fiddle' was quite common knowledge amongst even the dimmest of my fellow classmates.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
The context is redundant as the bar chart is accurately drawn. The zig zag shown shows there is a gap between 0 and first y-axis term of 200,000.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
I disagree. The “zig zag” is a sale, or axis, break, which is very common in specialised contexts. But data visualisation needs to serve fundamentally different audiences with different needs, knowledge bases, and attention spans in public vs specialist contexts. Specialist audiences share disciplinary knowledge of standard visual conventions in their field. They can interpret complex encodings like log scales, or axis breaks, without explanation. Public audiences lack this shared foundation, so visualisation should use intuitive visual metaphors and limit jargon. This one utilises such visual jargon, making it as bad as a Lib Dem bar chart.
The zig zag is very common in almost all contexts that regularly use bar charts, which is why its taught at school, its not something you need a diploma for.
Which makes those who omit it all the more egregious.
Being pedantic, it's a bit unusual to put a false origin on the vertical axis of a bar chart. Much more common on scatter charts.
Not hard to see why. Having the bars zoom up through the gap without a break visually drowns out the effect of the axis break. A quick glance (which is all most people will give it) gives a very misleading impression. Yes, the numbers are there, but that's the data visualisation equivalent of putting the "X was found not guilty" in the third paragraph under a "X ACCUSED OF DOING BAD THING" headline.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
You might find that field should contain some of the 1.4 million houses that have planning permission but haven't been built yet.
One of the impediments around housebuilding, especially in London, is the cost of construction. Between Community Infrastructure Levies and Section 106 payments and everything else, it's quite possible potential brownfield sites (such as one near me with a gas holder) are just not viable due to decontamination costs and other things.
I'm also hearing from an estate agent friend buyers are pulling out of the market in droves in advance of the Budget and agents are desperately trying to close deals before next Thursday and offering all kinds of inducements to get contracts exchanged.
It's the uncertainty, not the hope, that kills you I fear. Will we see some serious attempts at property taxation reform? It would be a first for what has been hitherto a timid Government but who knows? The Telegraph presumably....
It's worth remembering in my neck of the woods the rental market is king and the problem for the developers is flats for ownership are struggling to sell while new flats for rental are in strong demand.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
Thankfully, the field behind my house is already full of flats. As is the field in front and to the side. As is the field my own place is built. As is the recently demolished car salesroom quad that was taking up enough space for 50 flats. I guess if you don't want housing built on the field you like looking at, then buy it.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
The way to restore profitability at lower house sale prices is to cut costs, for example by removing a lot of housing regulations, mandates to build Social Housing, remove requirements to build infrastructure etc.
Whether that would be wise is a completely different question.
Recent complaint I've seen is that the big construction firms operate a go slow policy on new developments so that prices remain high. Anyone know if Apple operate this policy when they have a new iphone? Do they deliberately restrict the numbers they release below the demand level?
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
In political circles across Ukraine, Europe and Asia, a quiet consensus is forming: President Trump has lost control of his own coalition. The sense on the inside is that he has not only lost the MAGA base, he has alienated mainstream Republicans, donors and the international partners who once tolerated his unpredictability. What was whispered in January is now spoken aloud in April: Trump is politically exhausted, strategically adrift and increasingly isolated.
Several foreign diplomats describe the situation in the same blunt terms. They say Trump is entering the most dangerous phase of any presidency, the moment when the world stops taking a leader seriously long before his term is over. His credibility is eroding faster than his administration can manufacture talking points, and his decision making appears detached from both political reality and global interests.
The expectation in Washington and abroad is equally harsh. A political tsunami is coming in the midterms, and it is likely to wipe out the Republican majority entirely. This is not partisan analysis, it is survival logic. Republicans know that tying themselves to Trump now is the fastest way to lose their seats, their influence and their future inside the party. The first quiet repositionings have already begun, and the calculation is simple. If they want to be in Congress next year, they cannot afford to be in Trump’s shadow this year.
And here is the part that foreign capitals talk about the most. No one is going to help Trump push through an unfair deal or a last minute political stunt in the months before his final and increasingly irrelevant year in office. Not Europe, not Asia, not the global institutions he keeps trying to strong arm. The world sees what is happening. They know the clock is running out. They know the next administration will be forced to rebuild credibility from scratch. Backing Trump now would only guarantee that the damage lasts longer.
I'm not entirely sure that this has fully penetrated Starmer's skull yet.
I would like to think this is true, but I fear rather a lot is wishful thinking. Most pertinently, Trump doesn't need help to shaft the Ukrainians. He is capable of doing it all by his little fat self by blocking weapons shipments and lifting sanctions.
The damage done to the US and its reputation is enormous but it has already happened and (a) he's probably unaware of it given his mental decline and (b) even if he were he wouldn't care much given he only cares about himself.
The altogether more alarming implication is we might be 'in the final year of his presidency.' If that were true, which unless the widespread speculation about cancer is accurate it probably isn't, that really would be a disaster. Vance is not the world-beating intellectual he thinks he is, but he isn't stupid, and he isn't senile. What he is however is arrogant, ignorant and utterly selfish and malign. A worse person to be President would be hard to find, and that does include Trump.
Not read it but ‘had’ would be controversial. Has he had surgery? Even then you’d wait a while before claiming complete cure.
One of the things that Cameron thinks might sway the national argument also swayed his own personal argument. He was told about a “focal” therapy, using needles to deliver electric pulses to destroy the cancerous cells. It was less invasive and gruelling than a prostatectomy or radiotherapy. He went for it.
“The circumstances are changing,” he says. “The arguments are changing, and so it’s a really good moment to have another look at this.”
For him at least, it seems to have worked out. He went for the focal therapy. After the treatment, he was given another MRI scan. He remembers the day, because the Americans had just struck the Iranian nuclear plant. “It was the same week as Donald Trump was talking about the bomb damage assessment in Fornow … I got my own bomb damage assessment.”
It had been a precision strike. “It’s all quite close to various important nerves and bits of anatomy. When you see the picture of the bits you need to get rid of, and the bits that are still OK that you don’t? That was a big relief. That was a great moment.”
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
You might find that field should contain some of the 1.4 million houses that have planning permission but haven't been built yet.
And are those fields free for anyone to build on, or only an oligopoly who have got permission while independent competitors can't get permission? 🤔
Not read it but ‘had’ would be controversial. Has he had surgery? Even then you’d wait a while before claiming complete cure.
One of the things that Cameron thinks might sway the national argument also swayed his own personal argument. He was told about a “focal” therapy, using needles to deliver electric pulses to destroy the cancerous cells. It was less invasive and gruelling than a prostatectomy or radiotherapy. He went for it.
“The circumstances are changing,” he says. “The arguments are changing, and so it’s a really good moment to have another look at this.”
For him at least, it seems to have worked out. He went for the focal therapy. After the treatment, he was given another MRI scan. He remembers the day, because the Americans had just struck the Iranian nuclear plant. “It was the same week as Donald Trump was talking about the bomb damage assessment in Fornow … I got my own bomb damage assessment.”
It had been a precision strike. “It’s all quite close to various important nerves and bits of anatomy. When you see the picture of the bits you need to get rid of, and the bits that are still OK that you don’t? That was a big relief. That was a great moment.”
Cancer is a wily opponent. I’d wait awhile yet. It pays not to be too confident.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
You might find that field should contain some of the 1.4 million houses that have planning permission but haven't been built yet.
And are those fields free for anyone to build on, or only an oligopoly who have got permission while independent competitors can't get permission? 🤔
And are those fields free for anyone to build on without any regard at all for the public services in the broadest sense which will need to be extended *before* the houses are occupied? Shitfest, literally, otherwise, if enough fields are involved.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
The way to restore profitability at lower house sale prices is to cut costs, for example by removing a lot of housing regulations, mandates to build Social Housing, remove requirements to build infrastructure etc.
Whether that would be wise is a completely different question.
Is it even possible? If we assume that the current market price and quantity for new housing is a fair one (*doubt*), then we need to find a way to shift the supply curve in such a way that the market price drops by 50%. Roughly 3/5th of the cost of a house in the actual structure. A further 1/5th is stuff like roads and utilities, legal and professional fees. The remaining 1/5 is stuff like flood remediation, environmental fees, playparks, cycle lanes, heat pumps etc etc.
And that's before we even consider the cost of land (though that is perhaps less relevant as developers already own approx 1 million plots). I don't see where that 50% is coming from unless we effectively socialise the latter 2/5ths. That's a position that has some merit, but obviously some massive costs.
Not read it but ‘had’ would be controversial. Has he had surgery? Even then you’d wait a while before claiming complete cure.
One of the things that Cameron thinks might sway the national argument also swayed his own personal argument. He was told about a “focal” therapy, using needles to deliver electric pulses to destroy the cancerous cells. It was less invasive and gruelling than a prostatectomy or radiotherapy. He went for it.
“The circumstances are changing,” he says. “The arguments are changing, and so it’s a really good moment to have another look at this.”
For him at least, it seems to have worked out. He went for the focal therapy. After the treatment, he was given another MRI scan. He remembers the day, because the Americans had just struck the Iranian nuclear plant. “It was the same week as Donald Trump was talking about the bomb damage assessment in Fornow … I got my own bomb damage assessment.”
It had been a precision strike. “It’s all quite close to various important nerves and bits of anatomy. When you see the picture of the bits you need to get rid of, and the bits that are still OK that you don’t? That was a big relief. That was a great moment.”
Cancer is a wily opponent. I’d wait awhile yet. It pays not to be too confident.
I think his main aim is to ensure men get tested rather than die of embarrassment.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
Subdued demand, or increased cost of supply?
The fundamental problem is that we insist, via regulation, on only building houses which cost more than most people can afford.
Ergo, we have people complaining bitterly that houses are unaffordable, whilst no one is building more.
At least part of the solution is to rewind building and planning regs 30 years. If we want housing to be affordable, forget biodiversity net gain, forget nutrient neutraliry, forget stupid targets for insulation values which only permit tiny triple glazed windows. Forget carbon levys on cement works, landfill levys on hardcore etc etc etc.
That's why housing is unaffordable - and it's completely fixable, but only if the politicians are willing to rip up a whole lot of sacred cow level red tape.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Plenty of houses being built in the West of Scotland.
And I you who would just tell them bollocks about eating the right food and all will be well. I’ve had leukemia. I know how desperate people are to be told they are all clear. I also saw a friend days before she died who said ‘they told me they got it all’. I suspect they didn’t say that exactly. It’s wise to be cautious.
Recent complaint I've seen is that the big construction firms operate a go slow policy on new developments so that prices remain high. Anyone know if Apple operate this policy when they have a new iphone? Do they deliberately restrict the numbers they release below the demand level?
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
We need a land value tax, so they are taxed on the value of the land they are banking. And/or planning permission with a hard deadline. Use it or lose it.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
Subdued demand, or increased cost of supply?
The fundamental problem is that we insist, via regulation, on only building houses which cost more than most people can afford.
Ergo, we have people complaining bitterly that houses are unaffordable, whilst no one is building more.
At least part of the solution is to rewind building and planning regs 30 years. If we want housing to be affordable, forget biodiversity net gain, forget nutrient neutraliry, forget stupid targets for insulation values which only permit tiny triple glazed windows. Forget carbon levys on cement works, landfill levys on hardcore etc etc etc.
That's why housing is unaffordable - and it's completely fixable, but only if the politicians are willing to rip up a whole lot of sacred cow level red tape.
Rewind planning regs 80 years.
We have never succeeded in meeting the rates of development seen in the 1930s or 1890s ever post-WWII.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Plenty of houses being built in the West of Scotland.
Where are you? In Midlothian the number of dwellings has increased by 18% in the last 10 years. In Inverclyde it's 3%.
Recent complaint I've seen is that the big construction firms operate a go slow policy on new developments so that prices remain high. Anyone know if Apple operate this policy when they have a new iphone? Do they deliberately restrict the numbers they release below the demand level?
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
We need a land value tax, so they are taxed on the value of the land they are banking. And/or planning permission with a hard deadline. Use it or lose it.
Simpler - make big development competitive. Each street, or even side of street in a planned layout sold to different developers.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
Builders can only slow down if they don't face competition, which is only the case because of our broken planning system, which the Government claimed they would fix in their manifesto.
Planning is part, but not all of the problem. I'm sure we were discussing last week a thread on twitter, the gist of which was that we've made building in London so difficult and expensive that for about half the capital it's not profitable to build, even if you were given the land with outline planning permission for free.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
Yes. Why would I not be?
They put the 6 acre field behind my house up for the Vale of Glamorgan 15 year development plan. Fuck that! I wrote a letter of complaint and organised an opposition group. NIMBY!
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
Yes. Why would I not be?
They put the 6 acre field behind my house up for the Vale of Glamorgan 15 year development plan. Fuck that! I wrote a letter of complaint and organised an opposition group. NIMBY!
As my wife points out - if you don't own the land / view it's fair game...
Candice Owens seems nice but is completely bonkers
She's a dangerous MAGA.
Beware fragrant honey traps. Mordecai Vanunu is a salutary tale.
Interesting fact that Mme Macron is 24 years older than M Macron which is the same difference in age as between Mr and Mrs Trump
Society of course regards the Trump version as socially acceptable, but the other as less so. People are odd.
Trump already had children before he married Melania and had children with too, whereas Mme Macron had children before she married M Macron and has had been too old to have children with him as she was 54 when she married him while he was only 30 and childless. So maybe that unfairly has something to do with it
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
Builders can only slow down if they don't face competition, which is only the case because of our broken planning system, which the Government claimed they would fix in their manifesto.
Planning is part, but not all of the problem. I'm sure we were discussing last week a thread on twitter, the gist of which was that we've made building in London so difficult and expensive that for about half the capital it's not profitable to build, even if you were given the land with outline planning permission for free.
Two problems with London, one is that the land is extraordinarily expensive (and I don't believe its land for free too expensive), the other is that there is insufficient land.
The population of London has grown considerably in recent decades, as proportionately has the population of the country. The land used by London should have spread out proportionately too, but it has not.
The population has grown by 20% I believe in recent decades, the area occupied has not. London should have grown to accommodate its growing population and could have were it not for planning regulations.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
Yes. Why would I not be?
They put the 6 acre field behind my house up for the Vale of Glamorgan 15 year development plan. Fuck that! I wrote a letter of complaint and organised an opposition group. NIMBY!
If you don't want it developed, go and buy it yourself.
Otherwise mind your own business and stop curtain twitching.
And I you who would just tell them bollocks about eating the right food and all will be well. I’ve had leukemia. I know how desperate people are to be told they are all clear. I also saw a friend days before she died who said ‘they told me they got it all’. I suspect they didn’t say that exactly. It’s wise to be cautious.
And providing she was already taking sensible precautions, how would it have helped her? Every cancer sufferer fears that their condition will return. They do not need you to offer well-meaning doom laden prognostications.
Furthermore, you claim that my views are woo-woo, but above, you characterise cancer as 'a wily opponent' - a completely unscientific anthropomorphism that is sadly common but wholly unconstructive. Cancer is not a person, it does not want to kill you, and it is not personal. It is a dysfunction in the body. One must deal with both the symptoms of the dysfunction and hopefully the causes.
This was also the case when we clashed over the Warburg effect. You dismissed the theory that the effect could have an impact on cancer treatment, and then invented a completely fanciful and unscientific notion to explain what you perceive to be its lack of efficacy. A more down-to-earth explanation would be that the body is quite capable of producing its own glucose via the liver.
My comment was uncharitable, that's why I tried to delete it. However, I will stand by the point that seeing cancer as a fictional enemy that will 'get you in the end' is a dreadful way to look at the issue, not to mention an unscientific one.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Or more women could stop working full time when they have children, nearly half now do and that means homes which would previously have been 4x individual salary are now 8x as full time fathers and full time working mothers combine their salaries to buy the biggest property for them
Recent complaint I've seen is that the big construction firms operate a go slow policy on new developments so that prices remain high. Anyone know if Apple operate this policy when they have a new iphone? Do they deliberately restrict the numbers they release below the demand level?
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
We need a land value tax, so they are taxed on the value of the land they are banking. And/or planning permission with a hard deadline. Use it or lose it.
Simpler - make big development competitive. Each street, or even side of street in a planned layout sold to different developers.
Well that should be the case too. It should be easy to buy a small plot and build a few houses, even one.
Regulation should ask the question "in what circumstances would Berkeley Homes go bust?". Profit is the reward for risk.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
Yes. Why would I not be?
They put the 6 acre field behind my house up for the Vale of Glamorgan 15 year development plan. Fuck that! I wrote a letter of complaint and organised an opposition group. NIMBY!
As my wife points out - if you don't own the land / view it's fair game...
Unfortunately, people don't see it that way.
Meanwhile, this looks like the right sort of thing to be doing;
Labour is plotting a green belt building blitz with plans to make it far easier to build blocks of flats near commuter stations.
Steve Reed, the Housing Secretary, is preparing to grant default approval for building projects near well-connected train stations.
The new rules will extend to land within the green belt and include minimum housing density standards, implying properties must contain multiple dwellings.
Recent complaint I've seen is that the big construction firms operate a go slow policy on new developments so that prices remain high. Anyone know if Apple operate this policy when they have a new iphone? Do they deliberately restrict the numbers they release below the demand level?
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
We need a land value tax, so they are taxed on the value of the land they are banking. And/or planning permission with a hard deadline. Use it or lose it.
So increasing the cost to builders with a new tax improves profitability and reduces prices?
In political circles across Ukraine, Europe and Asia, a quiet consensus is forming: President Trump has lost control of his own coalition. The sense on the inside is that he has not only lost the MAGA base, he has alienated mainstream Republicans, donors and the international partners who once tolerated his unpredictability. What was whispered in January is now spoken aloud in April: Trump is politically exhausted, strategically adrift and increasingly isolated.
Several foreign diplomats describe the situation in the same blunt terms. They say Trump is entering the most dangerous phase of any presidency, the moment when the world stops taking a leader seriously long before his term is over. His credibility is eroding faster than his administration can manufacture talking points, and his decision making appears detached from both political reality and global interests.
The expectation in Washington and abroad is equally harsh. A political tsunami is coming in the midterms, and it is likely to wipe out the Republican majority entirely. This is not partisan analysis, it is survival logic. Republicans know that tying themselves to Trump now is the fastest way to lose their seats, their influence and their future inside the party. The first quiet repositionings have already begun, and the calculation is simple. If they want to be in Congress next year, they cannot afford to be in Trump’s shadow this year.
And here is the part that foreign capitals talk about the most. No one is going to help Trump push through an unfair deal or a last minute political stunt in the months before his final and increasingly irrelevant year in office. Not Europe, not Asia, not the global institutions he keeps trying to strong arm. The world sees what is happening. They know the clock is running out. They know the next administration will be forced to rebuild credibility from scratch. Backing Trump now would only guarantee that the damage lasts longer.
I'm not entirely sure that this has fully penetrated Starmer's skull yet.
I would like to think this is true, but I fear rather a lot is wishful thinking. Most pertinently, Trump doesn't need help to shaft the Ukrainians. He is capable of doing it all by his little fat self by blocking weapons shipments and lifting sanctions.
The damage done to the US and its reputation is enormous but it has already happened and (a) he's probably unaware of it given his mental decline and (b) even if he were he wouldn't care much given he only cares about himself.
The altogether more alarming implication is we might be 'in the final year of his presidency.' If that were true, which unless the widespread speculation about cancer is accurate it probably isn't, that really would be a disaster. Vance is not the world-beating intellectual he thinks he is, but he isn't stupid, and he isn't senile. What he is however is arrogant, ignorant and utterly selfish and malign. A worse person to be President would be hard to find, and that does include Trump.
Oh, I agree about Vance; I made the same point myself. Nonetheless, Trump is teetering on the brink of lame duck status, as he's both highly unpopular and visibly deteriorating.
And I you who would just tell them bollocks about eating the right food and all will be well. I’ve had leukemia. I know how desperate people are to be told they are all clear. I also saw a friend days before she died who said ‘they told me they got it all’. I suspect they didn’t say that exactly. It’s wise to be cautious.
And providing she was already taking sensible precautions, how would it have helped her? Every cancer sufferer fears that their condition will return. They do not need you to offer well-meaning doom laden prognostications.
Furthermore, you claim that my views are woo-woo, but above, you characterise cancer as 'a wily opponent' - a completely unscientific anthropomorphism that is sadly common but wholly unconstructive. Cancer is not a person, it does not want to kill you, and it is not personal. It is a dysfunction in the body. One must deal with both the symptoms of the dysfunction and hopefully the causes.
This was also the case when we clashed over the Warburg effect. You dismissed the theory that the effect could have an impact on cancer treatment, and then invented a completely fanciful and unscientific notion to explain what you perceive to be its lack of efficacy. A more down-to-earth explanation would be that the body is quite capable of producing its own glucose via the liver.
My comment was uncharitable, that's why I tried to delete it. However, I will stand by the point that seeing cancer as a fictional enemy that will 'get you in the end' is a dreadful way to look at the issue, not to mention an unscientific one.
I was not suggesting that it will get you in the end. Ten years is the standard time before regarding yourself as cured. Remind me of what unscientific notion I invented?
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Or more women could stop working full time when they have children, nearly half now do and that means homes which would previously have been 4x individual salary are now 8x as full time fathers and full time working mothers combine their salaries to buy the biggest property for them
You're switching around cause and effect. Many women were already working in the late 90s, early 00s, but as supply of houses was appropriate for demand, housing was still affordable.
The issue is not buying the biggest property, the biggest will always be expensive, the issue is insufficient supply means getting any property is unaffordable for too many. That can't be addressed without boosting supply.
And many people need 2 incomes as they need to pay for housing, not the other way around.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
Builders can only slow down if they don't face competition, which is only the case because of our broken planning system, which the Government claimed they would fix in their manifesto.
Planning is part, but not all of the problem. I'm sure we were discussing last week a thread on twitter, the gist of which was that we've made building in London so difficult and expensive that for about half the capital it's not profitable to build, even if you were given the land with outline planning permission for free.
Two problems with London, one is that the land is extraordinarily expensive (and I don't believe its land for free too expensive), the other is that there is insufficient land.
The population of London has grown considerably in recent decades, as proportionately has the population of the country. The land used by London should have spread out proportionately too, but it has not.
The population has grown by 20% I believe in recent decades, the area occupied has not. London should have grown to accommodate its growing population and could have were it not for planning regulations.
On top of which, brownfield has all the costs of remediation. And since many of the sites are pretty small, the only way to get a meaningful number of homes is to build very tall, which is expensive to make work. If you told me that the window of viability had shrunk to zero, I wouldn't be shocked.
(My understanding is that optimal viability is around 4-6 stories... the kind of thing that cities have in many countries, but not England. Except for all those mansion blocks in Marylebone et cetera, which are insanely desirable and hence expensive.)
Recent complaint I've seen is that the big construction firms operate a go slow policy on new developments so that prices remain high. Anyone know if Apple operate this policy when they have a new iphone? Do they deliberately restrict the numbers they release below the demand level?
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
We need a land value tax, so they are taxed on the value of the land they are banking. And/or planning permission with a hard deadline. Use it or lose it.
So increasing the cost to builders with a new tax improves profitability and reduces prices?
I am not convinced.
Do what the Japanese have done, have a liberal zonal system so planning permission is not required if zoned for development and a land tax.
That way you either develop the land if you want to use it or dispose of it to someone who does want to. Banking land to choke supply makes no sense.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
The way to restore profitability at lower house sale prices is to cut costs, for example by removing a lot of housing regulations, mandates to build Social Housing, remove requirements to build infrastructure etc.
Whether that would be wise is a completely different question.
Is it even possible? If we assume that the current market price and quantity for new housing is a fair one (*doubt*), then we need to find a way to shift the supply curve in such a way that the market price drops by 50%. Roughly 3/5th of the cost of a house in the actual structure. A further 1/5th is stuff like roads and utilities, legal and professional fees. The remaining 1/5 is stuff like flood remediation, environmental fees, playparks, cycle lanes, heat pumps etc etc.
And that's before we even consider the cost of land (though that is perhaps less relevant as developers already own approx 1 million plots). I don't see where that 50% is coming from unless we effectively socialise the latter 2/5ths. That's a position that has some merit, but obviously some massive costs.
If it is impossible to build houses that people can afford profitably, and there is a housing shortage then surely the only viable solution is mass building of social housing by either councils or central government. This is pretty much what went on until the Eighties. It is clear that the private sector is failing to build enough.
The teensy problem is that both councils and central government are skint.
Recent complaint I've seen is that the big construction firms operate a go slow policy on new developments so that prices remain high. Anyone know if Apple operate this policy when they have a new iphone? Do they deliberately restrict the numbers they release below the demand level?
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
We need a land value tax, so they are taxed on the value of the land they are banking. And/or planning permission with a hard deadline. Use it or lose it.
So increasing the cost to builders with a new tax improves profitability and reduces prices?
I am not convinced.
Do what the Japanese have done, have a liberal zonal system so planning permission is not required if zoned for development and a land tax.
That way you either develop the land if you want to use it or dispose of it to someone who does want to. Banking land to choke supply makes no sense.
Builders only "bank land" so that they can plan ahead. Builders will build if they have the capacity to do so, and make profit by doing so.
What is it about business that you don't understand?
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Or more women could stop working full time when they have children, nearly half now do and that means homes which would previously have been 4x individual salary are now 8x as full time fathers and full time working mothers combine their salaries to buy the biggest property for them
You're switching around cause and effect. Many women were already working in the late 90s, early 00s, but as supply of houses was appropriate for demand, housing was still affordable.
The issue is not buying the biggest property, the biggest will always be expensive, the issue is insufficient supply means getting any property is unaffordable for too many. That can't be addressed without boosting supply.
And many people need 2 incomes as they need to pay for housing, not the other way around.
Not correct, in 1990 only 35% of working age women in the UK were in full time employment and about 32% were in part time employment and 33% not working at all.
By 2020 45% of working age women in the UK were in full time employment, a 10% rise.
Yes we need to boost housing supply but we also need to encourage more mothers to only work full time and increase child benefit for working women and married couples allowance too
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
Without a change in the law? Of course it won't.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
Are you comfortable with all the new housing they plan to build in the field behind your house?
Yes. Why would I not be?
They put the 6 acre field behind my house up for the Vale of Glamorgan 15 year development plan. Fuck that! I wrote a letter of complaint and organised an opposition group. NIMBY!
As my wife points out - if you don't own the land / view it's fair game...
Unfortunately, people don't see it that way.
Meanwhile, this looks like the right sort of thing to be doing;
Labour is plotting a green belt building blitz with plans to make it far easier to build blocks of flats near commuter stations.
Steve Reed, the Housing Secretary, is preparing to grant default approval for building projects near well-connected train stations.
The new rules will extend to land within the green belt and include minimum housing density standards, implying properties must contain multiple dwellings.
Considering that builders have land-banks extending several years into the future, doesn't the chart simply show that housing demand is down?
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
There is a well known mechanism to respond to subdued demand called price.
That's why they are building like mad in and around Edinburgh, but not elsewhere in Scotland. Anyone who thinks the market will deliver enough new housing to drive prices down to 4x median salary (rather than 8x) is utterly deluded.
The way to restore profitability at lower house sale prices is to cut costs, for example by removing a lot of housing regulations, mandates to build Social Housing, remove requirements to build infrastructure etc.
Whether that would be wise is a completely different question.
Is it even possible? If we assume that the current market price and quantity for new housing is a fair one (*doubt*), then we need to find a way to shift the supply curve in such a way that the market price drops by 50%. Roughly 3/5th of the cost of a house in the actual structure. A further 1/5th is stuff like roads and utilities, legal and professional fees. The remaining 1/5 is stuff like flood remediation, environmental fees, playparks, cycle lanes, heat pumps etc etc.
And that's before we even consider the cost of land (though that is perhaps less relevant as developers already own approx 1 million plots). I don't see where that 50% is coming from unless we effectively socialise the latter 2/5ths. That's a position that has some merit, but obviously some massive costs.
Your 3/5, 1/5 and 1/5 breakdown is clearly wrong as you have left a remainder of 0/5 for the cost of the land.
The issue is our broken planning system adds a 0 to the cost of land if it gains permission, which means that land costs are inflated by 1000%. Eliminate that inflation and the cost of land alone could fall by upto 90% which would feed through to cheaper homes.
Comments
Pie charts.
Dodgy bar charts omit that zig zag normally. There's nothing dodgy here.
The bigger issue is the more fundamental one that the data is accurate and that the Government has done nothing to improve the situation in future years either.
Should I be worried that the Conservatives used crayon?
However, even if they had done everything that you and I would suggest needs to be done, then I doubt the chart would look very different. Simply: the vast majority of the homes that have become available since June 2024 began construction under the previous government. The question -really- is have housing starts (i.e. construction beginning) improved, because measuring the finished product after such a short period of time is a bit of a cheat.
Which is why I said said it is a bigger issue, that nothing has been done to improve the situation in future years.
I mean, even Scottish Labour couldn't understand what the equivalent, '[...]', in a quotation meant. Or claimed not to.
Now will it make anyone vote differently? That's an entirely different question and where x, f(x) and f''(x) matters.
Edit: doesn't mean that they are 'thick'.
It is, of course, misleading, even if technically correct. But not as bad as a LibDem special.
When those 3 weeks ended in California, another military training exercise began alongside civilians at Camp Riley in Minnesota.
French foreign legionnaires were involved in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They were not the only ones, but they were involved.
https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1992628129572307017
Now, we can speculate why that may be. Higher interest rates impacting on mortgages preventing upshifting, over stretched youngsters unable to afford a move, low fertility rates meaning people do not need family homes, more BTL and second homes moving to market because of tax changes, house prices stagnating in parts of the country, lack of government funding for social housing etc.
Ultimately the builders will build as fast as they can sell properies at a profit. They have enough land and permissions to do so, but have clearly slowed down in response to subdued demand.
(The wider issue is that a lot of what happened in 2024/5 wasn't really Labour's responsibility. The first three months were the fag end of the Sunak government, and the remaining nine were mostly under their policy shadow. It takes longer then we are mostly prepared to admit for a new government to make more than superfical changes, and longer still for those changes to feed through to everyday life. That excuse is real, but wearing thin now.)
Which makes those who omit it all the more egregious.
1) Utah is a long way from both California and Minnesota.
2) Why would the Frogs want to kill a man hardly known outside the USA, who never seemed bothered about France?
Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour springs to mind.
And of course Candace Owens has her finger on the pulse.
🚨 URGENT
Two days ago I was contacted by a high-ranking employee of the French Government. After determining this person’s position and proximity to the French couple, I have deemed the information they gave me to be credible enough to share publicly in the event that something happens.
In short, this person claims that the Macrons have executed upon and paid for my assassination. Yes, you read that correctly. More specifically, that the green light was given to a small team in National Gendamarie Intervention Group. I am told there is one Israeli that is on this assasination squad and the plans were formalized.
Again, this person provided concrete proof that they are well placed within the French government apparatus.
Further to this point, this person claims that Charlie Kirk’s assassin trained with the French legion 13th brigade with multi-state involvement.
Journalist Xavier Poussard’s life is also at risk. This is deadly serious. The head of state of France apparently wants us both dead and has authorized professional units to carry this out.
I ask that every person RETWEET and share this.
I do not know who in the American government can be trusted, since this source claims our leaders are aware. But I have more specific information which is definitively verifiable, should they care to reach out to me.
To the brave official in France who did this because they were so moved by the evil of Charlie’s public execution to risk their own life— May God bless you. Truly.
Let all be revealed.
https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1992117959779590412
Housing is very cyclical and undeniably economic growth is slowing. Surely this is just what we would expect housing demand to do in a slowing economy?
(I have sold down my housing stocks in my portfolio for this reason).
Beware fragrant honey traps. Mordecai Vanunu is a salutary tale.
If the brakes are taken off development? The of course it could.
Competition works.
The former PM’s wife urged him to have the tests that revealed he had cancer. Now he’s calling for a targeted screening programme
https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/article/david-cameron-interview-prostate-cancer-kmtc2zj78
(For example, BBC Bitesize has this; https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/ztwhvj6/articles/zt6v46f#zdf9qyc False origin mentioned a possibility on x, but not on y.)
Not hard to see why. Having the bars zoom up through the gap without a break visually drowns out the effect of the axis break. A quick glance (which is all most people will give it) gives a very misleading impression. Yes, the numbers are there, but that's the data visualisation equivalent of putting the "X was found not guilty" in the third paragraph under a "X ACCUSED OF DOING BAD THING" headline.
Which is the point, of course.
One of the impediments around housebuilding, especially in London, is the cost of construction. Between Community Infrastructure Levies and Section 106 payments and everything else, it's quite possible potential brownfield sites (such as one near me with a gas holder) are just not viable due to decontamination costs and other things.
I'm also hearing from an estate agent friend buyers are pulling out of the market in droves in advance of the Budget and agents are desperately trying to close deals before next Thursday and offering all kinds of inducements to get contracts exchanged.
It's the uncertainty, not the hope, that kills you I fear. Will we see some serious attempts at property taxation reform? It would be a first for what has been hitherto a timid Government but who knows? The Telegraph presumably....
It's worth remembering in my neck of the woods the rental market is king and the problem for the developers is flats for ownership are struggling to sell while new flats for rental are in strong demand.
Whether that would be wise is a completely different question.
If we'd had a property price crash I presume some of the builders would have gone bust and been replaced by new entrants who weren't over-leveraged and determined to keep prices high.
The damage done to the US and its reputation is enormous but it has already happened and (a) he's probably unaware of it given his mental decline and (b) even if he were he wouldn't care much given he only cares about himself.
The altogether more alarming implication is we might be 'in the final year of his presidency.' If that were true, which unless the widespread speculation about cancer is accurate it probably isn't, that really would be a disaster. Vance is not the world-beating intellectual he thinks he is, but he isn't stupid, and he isn't senile. What he is however is arrogant, ignorant and utterly selfish and malign. A worse person to be President would be hard to find, and that does include Trump.
“The circumstances are changing,” he says. “The arguments are changing, and so it’s a really good moment to have another look at this.”
For him at least, it seems to have worked out. He went for the focal therapy. After the treatment, he was given another MRI scan. He remembers the day, because the Americans had just struck the Iranian nuclear plant. “It was the same week as Donald Trump was talking about the bomb damage assessment in Fornow … I got my own bomb damage assessment.”
It had been a precision strike. “It’s all quite close to various important nerves and bits of anatomy. When you see the picture of the bits you need to get rid of, and the bits that are still OK that you don’t? That was a big relief. That was a great moment.”
And that's before we even consider the cost of land (though that is perhaps less relevant as developers already own approx 1 million plots). I don't see where that 50% is coming from unless we effectively socialise the latter 2/5ths. That's a position that has some merit, but obviously some massive costs.
The fundamental problem is that we insist, via regulation, on only building houses which cost more than most people can afford.
Ergo, we have people complaining bitterly that houses are unaffordable, whilst no one is building more.
At least part of the solution is to rewind building and planning regs 30 years. If we want housing to be affordable, forget biodiversity net gain, forget nutrient neutraliry, forget stupid targets for insulation values which only permit tiny triple glazed windows. Forget carbon levys on cement works, landfill levys on hardcore etc etc etc.
That's why housing is unaffordable - and it's completely fixable, but only if the politicians are willing to rip up a whole lot of sacred cow level red tape.
I’ve had leukemia. I know how desperate people are to be told they are all clear. I also saw a friend days before she died who said ‘they told me they got it all’. I suspect they didn’t say that exactly. It’s wise to be cautious.
We have never succeeded in meeting the rates of development seen in the 1930s or 1890s ever post-WWII.
Attlee screwed us. Get rid of that.
(Over the last 20 years it's 33% and 0.7%).
The population of London has grown considerably in recent decades, as proportionately has the population of the country. The land used by London should have spread out proportionately too, but it has not.
The population has grown by 20% I believe in recent decades, the area occupied has not. London should have grown to accommodate its growing population and could have were it not for planning regulations.
Otherwise mind your own business and stop curtain twitching.
Focal therapy uses needles to deliver electric pulses to destroy cancerous cells, and is less invasive than radiotherapy or a prostatectomy.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15319213/Former-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-reveals-diagnosed-prostate-cancer-wife-encouraged-test.html
Furthermore, you claim that my views are woo-woo, but above, you characterise cancer as 'a wily opponent' - a completely unscientific anthropomorphism that is sadly common but wholly unconstructive. Cancer is not a person, it does not want to kill you, and it is not personal. It is a dysfunction in the body. One must deal with both the symptoms of the dysfunction and hopefully the causes.
This was also the case when we clashed over the Warburg effect. You dismissed the theory that the effect could have an impact on cancer treatment, and then invented a completely fanciful and unscientific notion to explain what you perceive to be its lack of efficacy. A more down-to-earth explanation would be that the body is quite capable of producing its own glucose via the liver.
My comment was uncharitable, that's why I tried to delete it. However, I will stand by the point that seeing cancer as a fictional enemy that will 'get you in the end' is a dreadful way to look at the issue, not to mention an unscientific one.
Regulation should ask the question "in what circumstances would Berkeley Homes go bust?". Profit is the reward for risk.
He sank the Rainbow Warrior.
Meanwhile, this looks like the right sort of thing to be doing;
Labour is plotting a green belt building blitz with plans to make it far easier to build blocks of flats near commuter stations.
Steve Reed, the Housing Secretary, is preparing to grant default approval for building projects near well-connected train stations.
The new rules will extend to land within the green belt and include minimum housing density standards, implying properties must contain multiple dwellings.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/labour-plots-blocks-flats-near-080000981.html
I am not convinced.
Nonetheless, Trump is teetering on the brink of lame duck status, as he's both highly unpopular and visibly deteriorating.
The issue is not buying the biggest property, the biggest will always be expensive, the issue is insufficient supply means getting any property is unaffordable for too many. That can't be addressed without boosting supply.
And many people need 2 incomes as they need to pay for housing, not the other way around.
(My understanding is that optimal viability is around 4-6 stories... the kind of thing that cities have in many countries, but not England. Except for all those mansion blocks in Marylebone et cetera, which are insanely desirable and hence expensive.)
That way you either develop the land if you want to use it or dispose of it to someone who does want to. Banking land to choke supply makes no sense.
The teensy problem is that both councils and central government are skint.
https://news.sky.com/story/several-airlines-cancel-venezuela-flights-after-hazardous-situation-warning-13474401
Nobel Peace Prize nailed on!
What is it about business that you don't understand?
https://x.com/fraynejack34043/status/1992623713011798387?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
As someone tweeted he’s shit scared of saying anything controversial, even at this anodyne level.
By 2020 45% of working age women in the UK were in full time employment, a 10% rise.
https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/BN234.pdf#:~:text=However, the rise in employment rates for,50% in 1975 to 72% in 2015.
Yes we need to boost housing supply but we also need to encourage more mothers to only work full time and increase child benefit for working women and married couples allowance too
The issue is our broken planning system adds a 0 to the cost of land if it gains permission, which means that land costs are inflated by 1000%. Eliminate that inflation and the cost of land alone could fall by upto 90% which would feed through to cheaper homes.