Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the virtual Democratic convention new polling sh

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the virtual Democratic convention new polling shows strong support for Biden’s VP choice Kamala Harris

First Biden-Harris polling finds one in four Republicans backing Biden's VP choicehttps://t.co/3dJ8JQV6YQ pic.twitter.com/3tiQHQpfhz

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • FPT

    Sort out the housing crisis you've failed to resolve for 10 years, we can talk then. I'll be here waiting.

    Failed? Define fail or success please.

    Home ownership rates under Labour were going down.

    Home ownership rates now under the Tories are going up.

    The age at which people can buy their first home are going down.

    That is a success to me not a failure. More of the same needed please.
    I cannot afford a house (specifically the deposit), even though I earn a decent salary and I do not come from a poor background. When I can afford a house without needing money from my parents, or relatives, then we can re-visit the matter.

    I am not alone.
    Hopefully within the next decade you can. That is the most important issue for the government to deal with. Schemes like Help To Buy etc are a tremendous success for this across the North which is why the red wall turned blue I think. People like you being able to get their own home, hopefully you can soon too.
    "Within the next decade" - why not next year? Why not in two years?

    Wait ten years is not appealing to me whatsoever. You're doing badly here Philip, very badly.

    You've had 10 years to sort this out and you have failed. Wait another decade, nah I'll stick with Labour thanks.
    Good things come to those who wait.

    Being able to save up thousands for the deposit is hard, but well worth doing. With schemes like the Lifetime ISA if you can save £5000 per annum [if you save £4000] and with schemes like Help To Buy you only need a 5% deposit.

    Your saying why does it take time to save up for a deposit is like saying why does it take years to get a degree? Why not just get a degree at 18, why have to work hard for years to get it?
    No need to condescend me Philip. No need at all.
    I wasn't being condescending, you asked a question I gave you an honest answer. What is the issue there? A deposit is something valuable, it may take time to do it (and ideally that time should come down) but the most important thing is that it is doable, not that it is doable instantaneously with no delay. Whether it takes one, two or five years to save for a deposit doesn't matter much - if its impossible to save for one, that is terribly concerning.

    A decade ago people were finding it impossible to save for one, which is why ownership rates were falling fast. Now they are going up, that is movement in the right direction.

    Do you accept that even if things aren't perfect that ownership rates going up not down is a good thing?
    You were incredibly condescending. That's how it came across to me, starting with your point to try and explain how home ownership works, like I was born yesterday. Yes it was very condescending.
    You asked a question, I answered. How else was I supposed to answer the question: "Within the next decade" - why not next year? Why not in two years?

    I'm really confused what answer you expected, if my answering that question was "condescending"? Was I supposed to say there is no answer, rather than give the answer I gave?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    edited August 2020
    Second.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,264
    edited August 2020
    First like Biden. Or Trump, unfortunately.

    Edit: or third, like ... err ... Ralph Nader.
  • If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,366
    On topic - she is the safe pair of hands. Experienced etc. The only surprise is that the combined ticket doesn't offer more red meat to the left of the party....

    PHE all settings -

    image
    image
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Another way to look at this is to say Biden is running 0.6% below Clinton in the key battleground states vs Clinton in 2016

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/

    Again, be careful of the state polls - only one pollster got Michigan and Pennsylvania right in 2016 (Trafalgar in both) and nobody got Wisconsin.
  • If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Its not 39 that is the youngest people can buy their own home, it is the crossover average age that mostpeople own their own home. Many who have a decent salary will be buying at an earlier age, with no help.

    I'm not sure why you should automatically be able to get one in your 20s given that assuming you went to university you have not been earning until your 20s? If you can get one in your 20s then great! If you can't then hopefully you can get one in your thirties.

    Saying its dropped is very defensible. You're not going to be in your 20s forever, if its dropping then that is fantastic. If it is going up, then that is awful. Under Labour the crossover age was going up which was essentially saying that prior generations who owned their home still owned it but younger people couldn't get on the ladder even as they grew up. Under the Tories its reversing and younger people are getting on the ladder at an ever earlier age currently.

    There is more to do, but the original problem has been solved. You're dismissing the original problem of a decade ago because it no longer affects you, that's great. The fact that you don't like the improved situation we are now in is not bad, it just means there's more that needs to be done.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
  • Starmer is popular with Labour voters and members, these people are a tiny, irrelevant fringe.
  • kyf_100 said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
    They're not though, it was Labour that did that. Under Labour boomers house prices went up and up but us "Millenials" couldn't get on the housing ladder and the rates went down.

    Under the Tories ownership rates are going up now and house prices have plateaued.

    I'm curious which of those scenarios @CorrectHorseBattery prefers?
  • If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    My though re: this issue, is that both Harold Macmillan and Richard Crossman agreed with you on the basic point, that government - regardless of party - HAD to do something to build more houses, and more affordable housing. And they set themselves and their departments to this task with a clear, constant and (more or less) consistent focus.

    Both HM & RC thought is was good policy AND good politics. That was the case in their day - and still is.
  • kyf_100 said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
    I find it deeply odd myself. If they increased home ownership in the 20-30 bracket they'd get a chunk of new voters.

    They simply do not care about me, I accept that. But I think it's incredibly arrogant for somebody here to condescend me with policies that have failed to resolve the problem and to ask me to just wait longer.

    Why should I wait longer? I contribute to society just as much as anyone else does, I should be able to afford to buy my own home, as people used to be able to do. That's not "me me me", that's surely a mark of simple fairness.

    The original contention I had was the young vote Tory. They evidently do not.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2020

    kyf_100 said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
    I find it deeply odd myself. If they increased home ownership in the 20-30 bracket they'd get a chunk of new voters.

    They simply do not care about me, I accept that. But I think it's incredibly arrogant for somebody here to condescend me with policies that have failed to resolve the problem and to ask me to just wait longer.

    Why should I wait longer? I contribute to society just as much as anyone else does, I should be able to afford to buy my own home, as people used to be able to do. That's not "me me me", that's surely a mark of simple fairness.

    The original contention I had was the young vote Tory. They evidently do not.
    They are increasing ownership rates in your bracket which is why your bracket is increasingly going to vote Tory in future elections.
  • MrEd said:

    Another way to look at this is to say Biden is running 0.6% below Clinton in the key battleground states vs Clinton in 2016

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/

    Again, be careful of the state polls - only one pollster got Michigan and Pennsylvania right in 2016 (Trafalgar in both) and nobody got Wisconsin.
    Must be VERY careful comparing date-to-date polling 2016 vs 2020 due to changes in the election calendar, esp. scheduling of national conventions.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,877
    Pagan2 said:
    » show previous quotes
    Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
    Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".

    And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?

    Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.

    What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.

    The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home

    There found it it note the Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".


    This post was what earned you your epithet and no don't apologize because I will never forgive you for labelling me a racist .
  • Why should I wait longer? I contribute to society just as much as anyone else does, I should be able to afford to buy my own home, as people used to be able to do. That's not "me me me", that's surely a mark of simple fairness.

    You can. You just need to save for a deposit which has regularly been the case. Very rarely has there been a situation of house buying with zero deposit and when it has happened it normally causes problems.

    You can buy a house with a 5% deposit under Help To Buy. Do you think that should be 0%?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766

    Starmer is popular with Labour voters and members, these people are a tiny, irrelevant fringe.
    There's an air of desperation creeping in with these Cultists, me thinks.
  • In Seattle currently having what passes in these parts for a heat wave. Max temp Saturday at SeaTac = 88F; today is forecast to break 90F, not a record but way above even August norm in WA State west of the Cascades.

    In fact, we are getting Eastern WA's typical weather, because high pressure in North Pacific is pulling hot, dry desert air our way.

    SO what's it like your location?
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:
    » show previous quotes
    Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
    Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".

    And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?

    Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.

    What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.

    The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home

    There found it it note the Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".


    This post was what earned you your epithet and no don't apologize because I will never forgive you for labelling me a racist .

    Why don't you just link the post in question? My username isn't even in it!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766

    In Seattle currently having what passes in these parts for a heat wave. Max temp Saturday at SeaTac = 88F; today is forecast to break 90F, not a record but way above even August norm in WA State west of the Cascades.

    In fact, we are getting Eastern WA's typical weather, because high pressure in North Pacific is pulling hot, dry desert air our way.

    SO what's it like your location?

    Absolutely pissing down thanks.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,877

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:
    » show previous quotes
    Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
    Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".

    And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?

    Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.

    What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.

    The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home

    There found it it note the Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".


    This post was what earned you your epithet and no don't apologize because I will never forgive you for labelling me a racist .

    Why don't you just link the post in question? My username isn't even in it!
    because frankly no idea how to post a link to a single post https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/8888/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-the-russia-report-doesn-t-look-like-a-damp-squib/p3 maybe?
  • If that is the post I made and that was the post you made, then frankly I stand by it. You aren't willing to talk in a constructive manner to me and I already apologised to you before and in response you've been nothing but rude to me.

    All the best.
  • Thanks for posting the link, as above I can see I made it - I acknowledge that. And I stand by it.

    All the best.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,400

    Why should I wait longer? I contribute to society just as much as anyone else does, I should be able to afford to buy my own home, as people used to be able to do. That's not "me me me", that's surely a mark of simple fairness.

    You can. You just need to save for a deposit which has regularly been the case. Very rarely has there been a situation of house buying with zero deposit and when it has happened it normally causes problems.

    You can buy a house with a 5% deposit under Help To Buy. Do you think that should be 0%?
    And pay significantly over the odds as Help to Buy is only available on new homes.
  • If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    My though re: this issue, is that both Harold Macmillan and Richard Crossman agreed with you on the basic point, that government - regardless of party - HAD to do something to build more houses, and more affordable housing. And they set themselves and their departments to this task with a clear, constant and (more or less) consistent focus.

    Both HM & RC thought is was good policy AND good politics. That was the case in their day - and still is.
    Absolutely! Any Government that builds more houses and makes housing affordable for people like me, will get the credit they deserve.

    The Tories simply do not build enough houses. Houses are too expensive for many to afford, even if they do save for a deposit.

    The reality is, house prices need to come down or people need to earn a lot more money.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,264
    These pictures of Minsk make it look quite agreeable. Certainly better than brutalist Bucharest under Ceaușescu. And the people seem well clothed and well fed. Why are they all so angry?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,594

    In Seattle currently having what passes in these parts for a heat wave. Max temp Saturday at SeaTac = 88F; today is forecast to break 90F, not a record but way above even August norm in WA State west of the Cascades.

    In fact, we are getting Eastern WA's typical weather, because high pressure in North Pacific is pulling hot, dry desert air our way.

    SO what's it like your location?

    Terrible rain in Lincolnshire this evening. Floods everywhere.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,877

    Thanks for posting the link, as above I can see I made it - I acknowledge that. And I stand by it.

    All the best.

    If that is the post I made and that was the post you made, then frankly I stand by it. You aren't willing to talk in a constructive manner to me and I already apologised to you before and in response you've been nothing but rude to me.

    All the best.

    I told you I won't accept an apology, accusing someone of racism, paedophilia, homophobia or misogyny are serious and should be never be forgiven
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
    They're not though, it was Labour that did that. Under Labour boomers house prices went up and up but us "Millenials" couldn't get on the housing ladder and the rates went down.

    Under the Tories ownership rates are going up now and house prices have plateaued.

    I'm curious which of those scenarios @CorrectHorseBattery prefers?
    Dunno about that. I bought my first place two years into the Coalition government and pre-Covid it was worth about 35-40% more than what I paid for it.

    I think help to buy helped house builders a great deal more than first time buyers by keeping prices high and artificially inflating the market when they should have fallen. Ditto Rishi's stamp duty holiday.

    These measures are aimed at protecting the wealth of existing owners, not at helping new buyers.
  • Pagan2 said:

    Thanks for posting the link, as above I can see I made it - I acknowledge that. And I stand by it.

    All the best.

    If that is the post I made and that was the post you made, then frankly I stand by it. You aren't willing to talk in a constructive manner to me and I already apologised to you before and in response you've been nothing but rude to me.

    All the best.

    I told you I won't accept an apology, accusing someone of racism, paedophilia, homophobia or misogyny are serious and should be never be forgiven
    You have a great day.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,877

    If that is the post I made and that was the post you made, then frankly I stand by it. You aren't willing to talk in a constructive manner to me and I already apologised to you before and in response you've been nothing but rude to me.

    All the best.

    As to being nothing but rude to you I wasn't until you started it so go swivel
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    On topic - she is the safe pair of hands. Experienced etc. The only surprise is that the combined ticket doesn't offer more red meat to the left of the party....

    PHE all settings -

    image
    image

    The NHS England hospital Covid death count was also down to 2 today, which is the nearest we've had to a zero since these figures began to be published. There, mercifully, continues to be no sign of a resurgence, although I'll be happier when they next update the hospital patient total (if it shows a further decline, of course.)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,594
    The polls were rubbish in 2016. Who would be surprised if the were again this year?
  • Pagan2 said:

    If that is the post I made and that was the post you made, then frankly I stand by it. You aren't willing to talk in a constructive manner to me and I already apologised to you before and in response you've been nothing but rude to me.

    All the best.

    As to being nothing but rude to you I wasn't until you started it so go swivel
    Have a lovely evening! :)
  • OT - VP pick bounce in operation, which itself is interesting because a Black woman is affecting the polls just like any ordinary running mate generally does.

    Sure, she polls great with African Americans, but I'm convinced that ANYONE Biden selected would have done well with Black Americans.

    Real deal is that NON Black voters, including many Republicans, mostly consider Kamala Harris to be a respectable, even superior selection. For reasons that (also mostly) have more to do with the content of her character than the color of her skin.

    BLM gave her a huge boost this year. However, she'd already established her credentials with engaged Democrats and other likely voters BEFORE the killing of George Floyd.
  • I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.
  • kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
    They're not though, it was Labour that did that. Under Labour boomers house prices went up and up but us "Millenials" couldn't get on the housing ladder and the rates went down.

    Under the Tories ownership rates are going up now and house prices have plateaued.

    I'm curious which of those scenarios @CorrectHorseBattery prefers?
    Dunno about that. I bought my first place two years into the Coalition government and pre-Covid it was worth about 35-40% more than what I paid for it.

    I think help to buy helped house builders a great deal more than first time buyers by keeping prices high and artificially inflating the market when they should have fallen. Ditto Rishi's stamp duty holiday.

    These measures are aimed at protecting the wealth of existing owners, not at helping new buyers.
    You have this back to front.

    Helping house builders hurts existing owners, it doesn't help them! If house builders are helped then it means that the supply of homes goes up (as has happened) which drives the price of homes down (as has happened). Since these schemes went in house price to wage ratios have gone down after decades of going up.

    More new homes = more cheaper homes = easier for first time buyers to get on the ladder.

    Plus the hardest part of getting on the ladder is getting the deposit.
  • House prices not rising is really not much of an achievement. They were too high when they got stuck there (I am not sure they actually have stopped increasing to be honest but I confess that's only based on headlines of late).

    House prices need to fall. I am sorry if that hurts you but that's the reality.

    And New Labour didn't get a grip on it either, not disputing that.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,594
    edited August 2020

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    Console yourself with this thought: I recently turned 40 and haven't been able to afford my own house yet.
  • Andy_JS said:

    The polls were rubbish in 2016. Who would be surprised if the were again this year?
    Yours truly would, because methinks the pollsters are working overtime trying do improve their samplings.

    Which does NOT preclude possibility that they could get something ELSE wrong this year, but DOES lower chances they will make the same errors as four years ago.
  • House prices not rising is really not much of an achievement. They were too high when they got stuck there (I am not sure they actually have stopped increasing to be honest but I confess that's only based on headlines of late).

    House prices need to fall. I am sorry if that hurts you but that's the reality.

    And New Labour didn't get a grip on it either, not disputing that.

    House prices have been falling relative to wages.

    Like the debt, if you have no deficit but have growth then debt-to-GDP goes down.
    If you have plateaued house prices but wage growth then house price-to-wage ratios goes down.

    In the last few years the Tories have managed both.
  • Andy_JS said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    Console yourself with this thought: I recently turned 40 and haven't been able to afford my own house yet.
    Sorry to hear that mate, hope you'll be able to soon. Where are you looking?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,247
    edited August 2020
    I just ran across the ex-Travel-Blogger Max Gogarty, who started writing a travel blog about his Far East Gap Year in the G. Then stopped after one episode.

    I wonder how he would get on in the face of today's BLM activists?

    At least there's no taking exotic foreign lands for granted, or stereotyping, here.

    "Meet Max Gogarty - 19, from north London, spends his money on food, booze and skinny jeans, writes for Skins in his spare time. He's off to India and Thailand to have a good time, and you can join him in his weekly blog

    ...

    Hello. I'm Max Gogarty. I'm 19 and live on top of a hill in north London.

    At the minute, I'm working in a restaurant with a bunch of lovely, funny people; writing a play; writing bits for Skins; spending any sort of money I earn on food and skinny jeans, and drinking my way to a financially blighted two-month trip to India and Thailand. Clichéd I know, but clichés are there for a reason.

    I'm kinda shitting myself about travelling. Well not so much the travelling part. It's India that scares me. The heat, the roads, the snakes, Australian travellers. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited. But shitting myself.

    ...

    Anyway, you could come with me every step of the way - well, not every step. Just a few minutes once a week, via this blog. Even so, I'll do my best to tell of the debauched beach parties, the dodgy days with "washing machine" tummy, the messy late-night stumblings into bars and, of course, all that bullshit about finding myself."


    And joyous comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/travel/blog/2008/feb/14/skinsblog
  • Andy_JS said:

    In Seattle currently having what passes in these parts for a heat wave. Max temp Saturday at SeaTac = 88F; today is forecast to break 90F, not a record but way above even August norm in WA State west of the Cascades.

    In fact, we are getting Eastern WA's typical weather, because high pressure in North Pacific is pulling hot, dry desert air our way.

    SO what's it like your location?

    Terrible rain in Lincolnshire this evening. Floods everywhere.
    Very sorry to hear that, flooding is VERY hard to endure. Sounds like cold air & warm air colliding big time, rather typical of US spring-summer weather east of the Rockies, but not so much your part of the world?
  • In Seattle currently having what passes in these parts for a heat wave. Max temp Saturday at SeaTac = 88F; today is forecast to break 90F, not a record but way above even August norm in WA State west of the Cascades.

    In fact, we are getting Eastern WA's typical weather, because high pressure in North Pacific is pulling hot, dry desert air our way.

    SO what's it like your location?

    Absolutely pissing down thanks.
    So where you at, Your Rottenness?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,366

    On topic - she is the safe pair of hands. Experienced etc. The only surprise is that the combined ticket doesn't offer more red meat to the left of the party....

    PHE all settings -

    image
    image

    The NHS England hospital Covid death count was also down to 2 today, which is the nearest we've had to a zero since these figures began to be published. There, mercifully, continues to be no sign of a resurgence, although I'll be happier when they next update the hospital patient total (if it shows a further decline, of course.)
    We are in the weekend effect - so making judgements on day-to-day numbers is particularly inaccurate at the moment.
  • I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.

    Why not?

    If you can save £100 a month for five years into a Lifetime ISA that is £6000, which can be used as a deposit of £7,200 which at 5% is a house worth £144,000.

    Near me there are new builds available at that price under the Help to Buy scheme.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
    They're not though, it was Labour that did that. Under Labour boomers house prices went up and up but us "Millenials" couldn't get on the housing ladder and the rates went down.

    Under the Tories ownership rates are going up now and house prices have plateaued.

    I'm curious which of those scenarios @CorrectHorseBattery prefers?
    Dunno about that. I bought my first place two years into the Coalition government and pre-Covid it was worth about 35-40% more than what I paid for it.

    I think help to buy helped house builders a great deal more than first time buyers by keeping prices high and artificially inflating the market when they should have fallen. Ditto Rishi's stamp duty holiday.

    These measures are aimed at protecting the wealth of existing owners, not at helping new buyers.
    You have this back to front.

    Helping house builders hurts existing owners, it doesn't help them! If house builders are helped then it means that the supply of homes goes up (as has happened) which drives the price of homes down (as has happened). Since these schemes went in house price to wage ratios have gone down after decades of going up.

    More new homes = more cheaper homes = easier for first time buyers to get on the ladder.

    Plus the hardest part of getting on the ladder is getting the deposit.
    It's a strange spectacle watching a self-styled libertarian advocate for market intervention to keep prices artificially high.

    "Let's interfere in the market to keep house prices artificially high, so house builders will build more houses!" is a circular, self-defeating argument.

    The house prices are still too high. The huge deposits required are out of reach to most without parental help, and those who can afford the extortionate price of a rabbit hutch end up saddled with a huge amount of debt for the rest of their lives.

    And don't even get me started on the leasehold scandal. But we've got to help those poor, unfortunate house builders, right!?
  • No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.
  • kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    I think you've nailed why young people don't vote Conservative.

    But here's the curious thing. Wanting to buy a house, settle down, raise a family, make a bit of money, generally get on in life and be comfortable are very small C conservative values.

    Which is why it's such an oddity the Conservatives seem hell bent on protecting boomer wealth in housing stock above all other factors.
    They're not though, it was Labour that did that. Under Labour boomers house prices went up and up but us "Millenials" couldn't get on the housing ladder and the rates went down.

    Under the Tories ownership rates are going up now and house prices have plateaued.

    I'm curious which of those scenarios @CorrectHorseBattery prefers?
    Dunno about that. I bought my first place two years into the Coalition government and pre-Covid it was worth about 35-40% more than what I paid for it.

    I think help to buy helped house builders a great deal more than first time buyers by keeping prices high and artificially inflating the market when they should have fallen. Ditto Rishi's stamp duty holiday.

    These measures are aimed at protecting the wealth of existing owners, not at helping new buyers.
    You have this back to front.

    Helping house builders hurts existing owners, it doesn't help them! If house builders are helped then it means that the supply of homes goes up (as has happened) which drives the price of homes down (as has happened). Since these schemes went in house price to wage ratios have gone down after decades of going up.

    More new homes = more cheaper homes = easier for first time buyers to get on the ladder.

    Plus the hardest part of getting on the ladder is getting the deposit.
    It's a strange spectacle watching a self-styled libertarian advocate for market intervention to keep prices artificially high.

    "Let's interfere in the market to keep house prices artificially high, so house builders will build more houses!" is a circular, self-defeating argument.

    The house prices are still too high. The huge deposits required are out of reach to most without parental help, and those who can afford the extortionate price of a rabbit hutch end up saddled with a huge amount of debt for the rest of their lives.

    And don't even get me started on the leasehold scandal. But we've got to help those poor, unfortunate house builders, right!?
    Who said make prices high?

    The scheme doesn't make prices high, it makes prices go down not up.

    At 5% deposit it isn't out of reach of most which is why most are able to get on the housing ladder eventually.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.

    Why not?

    If you can save £100 a month for five years into a Lifetime ISA that is £6000, which can be used as a deposit of £7,200 which at 5% is a house worth £144,000.

    Near me there are new builds available at that price under the Help to Buy scheme.
    You won't get close to a mortgage for that, unless you have a £70,000+ income.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    House prices not rising is really not much of an achievement. They were too high when they got stuck there (I am not sure they actually have stopped increasing to be honest but I confess that's only based on headlines of late).

    House prices need to fall. I am sorry if that hurts you but that's the reality.

    And New Labour didn't get a grip on it either, not disputing that.

    The Government will do everything in its power to prevent house prices from falling. Negative equity would be potentially crippling for the banking system and nuclear death for the Government responsible. John Major would be able to tell you all about that.

    If you think that the wailing about lockdown, care home deaths and exam results has been bad, just wait until large numbers of mortgage payers find themselves toiling to service loans that are worth less than the sale value of their homes. No fat profits to finance moves, to cash in on downsizing, or to bail themselves out of their debts if they can no longer afford to service their mortgages. The nationwide howls of agony would be deafening.
  • Grandiose said:

    I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.

    Why not?

    If you can save £100 a month for five years into a Lifetime ISA that is £6000, which can be used as a deposit of £7,200 which at 5% is a house worth £144,000.

    Near me there are new builds available at that price under the Help to Buy scheme.
    You won't get close to a mortgage for that, unless you have a £70,000+ income.
    I'll find the extra £400,000 down the back of the sofa.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    House prices not rising is really not much of an achievement. They were too high when they got stuck there (I am not sure they actually have stopped increasing to be honest but I confess that's only based on headlines of late).

    House prices need to fall. I am sorry if that hurts you but that's the reality.

    And New Labour didn't get a grip on it either, not disputing that.

    Falling house prices - and even an expectation of falling house prices - is bad news for first time buyers in the short term at least.

    Take Nationwide's decision to insist on 75% of a deposit being your own money (not mum and dad's) for their 90% mortgage. Also, they aren't allowing those mortgages on new builds as they expect the prices of pokey new builds to crash.
  • No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
  • tlg86 said:

    House prices not rising is really not much of an achievement. They were too high when they got stuck there (I am not sure they actually have stopped increasing to be honest but I confess that's only based on headlines of late).

    House prices need to fall. I am sorry if that hurts you but that's the reality.

    And New Labour didn't get a grip on it either, not disputing that.

    Falling house prices - and even an expectation of falling house prices - is bad news for first time buyers in the short term at least.

    Take Nationwide's decision to insist on 75% of a deposit being your own money (not mum and dad's) for their 90% mortgage. Also, they aren't allowing those mortgages on new builds as they expect the prices of pokey new builds to crash.
    I'm not a housing expert, so I am sure you know a lot more than me. But unless you can make houses more affordable, I simply do not see how this issue gets resolved. And that means prices falling, does it not?
  • tlg86 said:

    House prices not rising is really not much of an achievement. They were too high when they got stuck there (I am not sure they actually have stopped increasing to be honest but I confess that's only based on headlines of late).

    House prices need to fall. I am sorry if that hurts you but that's the reality.

    And New Labour didn't get a grip on it either, not disputing that.

    Falling house prices - and even an expectation of falling house prices - is bad news for first time buyers in the short term at least.

    Take Nationwide's decision to insist on 75% of a deposit being your own money (not mum and dad's) for their 90% mortgage. Also, they aren't allowing those mortgages on new builds as they expect the prices of pokey new builds to crash.
    I'm not a housing expert, so I am sure you know a lot more than me. But unless you can make houses more affordable, I simply do not see how this issue gets resolved. And that means prices falling, does it not?
    No.

    It means prices staying the same while wages rise.
  • No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
  • So yes, the advice is "just move". Thanks, very useful.
  • I'm off for a bit, have a lovely evening all
  • No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
    I said specificially "I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London".

    So no I'm not. If you want to read into it about London then that's about you not me.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    On topic - she is the safe pair of hands. Experienced etc. The only surprise is that the combined ticket doesn't offer more red meat to the left of the party....

    PHE all settings -

    image
    image

    The NHS England hospital Covid death count was also down to 2 today, which is the nearest we've had to a zero since these figures began to be published. There, mercifully, continues to be no sign of a resurgence, although I'll be happier when they next update the hospital patient total (if it shows a further decline, of course.)
    We are in the weekend effect - so making judgements on day-to-day numbers is particularly inaccurate at the moment.
    Oh I'm well aware of that - and the mortality numbers have been so low for so long that they're going to be subject to statistical noise, anyway - but I thought it to be symbolically noteworthy at least.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
    Philip's maths are off. At the moment the most you can borrow is a 90% LTV, so you'd need a deposit of probably £25,000 for a one bed flat somewhere cheap in London, probably £30,000.

    To put that together in five years is £500 per month, which means an gross income of £40,000+. That's fine for the professions but not many other people.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    The real issue is house prices. This was caused by asset price inflation resulting from the decision to print money after the 2008 crash. This was compounded Dee by the decision to restrict mortgage lending to a 5.5x multiple.

    The Tory government made some progress in controlling the deficit but until they can sterilise the debt (ie sell the debt on the BoE balance sheet to third party investors and cancel the proceeds) then that’s not going to change.

    Hence you need to reduce house prices over time by basically keeping them as flat as possible in nominal terms while wages increase. You can’t just cut prices because that will destroy the banking sector.

    Fundamentally it’s a mess. But it’s unreasonable to expect the government to “solve it”. There are no good options and it is going to take time to unwind the fundamental damage down in the 2000s. The West was living beyond our means in a big way and we are still paying the price
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,247
    edited August 2020
    Grandiose said:

    I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.

    Why not?

    If you can save £100 a month for five years into a Lifetime ISA that is £6000, which can be used as a deposit of £7,200 which at 5% is a house worth £144,000.

    Near me there are new builds available at that price under the Help to Buy scheme.
    You won't get close to a mortgage for that, unless you have a £70,000+ income.
    I'd be interested in some elucidation on that.

    Max normal multiple at present is around 4.5x salary. Though I think the deposit would perhaps need to be 10% for highstreet lenders.

    Plus aiui Help to Buy offers an interest free loan of 20% of value (40% in London)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    tlg86 said:

    House prices not rising is really not much of an achievement. They were too high when they got stuck there (I am not sure they actually have stopped increasing to be honest but I confess that's only based on headlines of late).

    House prices need to fall. I am sorry if that hurts you but that's the reality.

    And New Labour didn't get a grip on it either, not disputing that.

    Falling house prices - and even an expectation of falling house prices - is bad news for first time buyers in the short term at least.

    Take Nationwide's decision to insist on 75% of a deposit being your own money (not mum and dad's) for their 90% mortgage. Also, they aren't allowing those mortgages on new builds as they expect the prices of pokey new builds to crash.
    I'm not a housing expert, so I am sure you know a lot more than me. But unless you can make houses more affordable, I simply do not see how this issue gets resolved. And that means prices falling, does it not?
    The point is that you're always going to need a mortgage. If lenders are worried about prices going down, then they will be less willing to lend and it precipitates a vicious circle. I think @Black_Rook is right to suggest that there will be far more anger if (when?) prices fall.

    In the medium term a large fall in house prices wouldn't be a bad thing. The problem is the getting there. I suspect today's 30-somethings could be facing a difficult few years or more.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    So yes, the advice is "just move". Thanks, very useful.

    To be honest, London is ruinously expensive. You may very well be much better off moving if your personal circumstances permit.

    Since the Plague broke out and so many people found that they could work from home successfully, anecdata suggest that the numbers of Londoners actively interested in upping sticks and leaving have soared.
  • Grandiose said:

    I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.

    Why not?

    If you can save £100 a month for five years into a Lifetime ISA that is £6000, which can be used as a deposit of £7,200 which at 5% is a house worth £144,000.

    Near me there are new builds available at that price under the Help to Buy scheme.
    You won't get close to a mortgage for that, unless you have a £70,000+ income.
    Why not? According to Barclays website you could get a loan for much more than that based on a 20k income.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    MrEd said:

    Another way to look at this is to say Biden is running 0.6% below Clinton in the key battleground states vs Clinton in 2016

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/

    Again, be careful of the state polls - only one pollster got Michigan and Pennsylvania right in 2016 (Trafalgar in both) and nobody got Wisconsin.
    Must be VERY careful comparing date-to-date polling 2016 vs 2020 due to changes in the election calendar, esp. scheduling of national conventions.
    Indeed, I meant to put that very point in my post but rushed it!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    So yes, the advice is "just move". Thanks, very useful.

    To be honest, London is ruinously expensive. You may very well be much better off moving if your personal circumstances permit.

    Since the Plague broke out and so many people found that they could work from home successfully, anecdata suggest that the numbers of Londoners actively interested in upping sticks and leaving have soared.
    H2B allowed buyers to get a 40% government loan on new builds. I wonder just how exposed the tax payer is to a crash in London house prices.
  • Grandiose said:

    No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
    Philip's maths are off. At the moment the most you can borrow is a 90% LTV, so you'd need a deposit of probably £25,000 for a one bed flat somewhere cheap in London, probably £30,000.

    To put that together in five years is £500 per month, which means an gross income of £40,000+. That's fine for the professions but not many other people.
    London is f***ed up, I'm not talking about London. The world exists outside of London so don't be so myopic. As I said around here you could get a new build semi detached house with a deposit of £6000 of your own savings - with Help To Buy you can get 95% LTV.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,703
    Charles said:

    Hence you need to reduce house prices over time by basically keeping them as flat as possible in nominal terms while wages increase. You can’t just cut prices because that will destroy the banking sector.

    House prices fell in the 1990s without destroying the banking sector.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,560
    edited August 2020

    No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
    A quick google tells me that the average house price in London is £435,000.

    The average house price in Grantham - which is 1 hr 15 minutes from Kings Cross - is £176,000.

    A season ticket for Grantham to London varies from just under £8000 to just under £9000 depending on which service you use.

    On that basis you could commute for a decade - spending £90,000 on season tickets - and still be better of by almost £180,000.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    tlg86 said:

    So yes, the advice is "just move". Thanks, very useful.

    To be honest, London is ruinously expensive. You may very well be much better off moving if your personal circumstances permit.

    Since the Plague broke out and so many people found that they could work from home successfully, anecdata suggest that the numbers of Londoners actively interested in upping sticks and leaving have soared.
    H2B allowed buyers to get a 40% government loan on new builds. I wonder just how exposed the tax payer is to a crash in London house prices.
    Were there that many purchases underwritten by H2B in Greater London? I don't honestly know, but it seems doubtful.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    tlg86 said:

    So yes, the advice is "just move". Thanks, very useful.

    To be honest, London is ruinously expensive. You may very well be much better off moving if your personal circumstances permit.

    Since the Plague broke out and so many people found that they could work from home successfully, anecdata suggest that the numbers of Londoners actively interested in upping sticks and leaving have soared.
    H2B allowed buyers to get a 40% government loan on new builds. I wonder just how exposed the tax payer is to a crash in London house prices.
    Were there that many purchases underwritten by H2B in Greater London? I don't honestly know, but it seems doubtful.
    Neither do I and H2B isn't that big a scheme. But it's more money that the tax payer may not get back.
  • Charles said:

    If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.

    My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.

    I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.

    Anyway, I can see as usual this debate is completely circular so I'm going to leave it there.

    The real issue is house prices. This was caused by asset price inflation resulting from the decision to print money after the 2008 crash. This was compounded Dee by the decision to restrict mortgage lending to a 5.5x multiple.

    The Tory government made some progress in controlling the deficit but until they can sterilise the debt (ie sell the debt on the BoE balance sheet to third party investors and cancel the proceeds) then that’s not going to change.

    Hence you need to reduce house prices over time by basically keeping them as flat as possible in nominal terms while wages increase. You can’t just cut prices because that will destroy the banking sector.

    Fundamentally it’s a mess. But it’s unreasonable to expect the government to “solve it”. There are no good options and it is going to take time to unwind the fundamental damage down in the 2000s. The West was living beyond our means in a big way and we are still paying the price
    House price inflation didn't happen post-2008

    House price inflation happened before it. In 1997 the average UK house price was about £50,000 - by 2008 it was over £180,000. That is the problem.

    New Labour screwed the young and we're still paying the price. That's what happens when Labour get in office.
  • Songs of the (Nno-) Battle Ground States - Mississippi

    ODE TO BILLY JOE
    Bobbie Gentry

    It was the third of June, another sleepy, dusty Delta day
    I was out choppin' cotton and my brother was balin' hay
    And at dinner time we stopped and walked back to the house to eat
    And mama hollered out the back door, y'all remember to wipe your feet
    And then she said I got some news this mornin' from Choctaw Ridge
    Today, Billy Joe MacAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge

    And papa said to mama, as he passed around the blackeyed peas
    Well Billy Joe never had a lick of sense; pass the biscuits please
    There's five more acres in the lower forty I've got to plow
    And mama said it was shame about Billy Joe anyhow
    Seems like nothin' ever comes to no good up on Choctaw Ridge
    And now Billy Joe MacAllister's jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge

    And brother said he recollected when he, and Tom, and Billy Joe
    Put a frog down my back at the Carroll County picture show
    And wasn't I talkin' to him after church last Sunday night?
    I'll have another piece of apple pie you know it don't seem right
    I saw him at the sawmill yesterday on Choctaw Ridge
    And now ya tell me Billy Joe's jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge

    And mama said to me, child what's happened to your appetite?
    I've been cookin' all morning and you haven't touched a single bite
    That nice young preacher Brother Taylor dropped by today
    Said he'd be pleased to have dinner on Sunday, oh, by the way
    He said he saw a girl that looked a lot like you up on Choctaw Ridge
    And she and Billy Joe was throwing somethin' off the Tallahatchie Bridge

    A year has come and gone since we heard the news 'bout Billy Joe
    And brother married Becky Thompson they bought a store in Tupelo
    There was a virus going 'round; papa caught it and he died last spring
    And now mama doesn't seem to want to do much of anything
    And me, I spend a lot of time pickin' flowers up on Choctaw Ridge
    And drop them into the muddy water off the Tallahatchie Bridge
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Charles said:

    Hence you need to reduce house prices over time by basically keeping them as flat as possible in nominal terms while wages increase. You can’t just cut prices because that will destroy the banking sector.

    House prices fell in the 1990s without destroying the banking sector.
    They did , but interest rates went upto 15%.
    My neighbour and I nearly had a heart attack when briefly they went up 5% in one day.
    One of the reasons the conservatives lost the 97 election so big.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
    A quick google tells me that the average house price in London is £435,000.

    The average house price in Grantham - which is 1 hr 15 minutes from Kings Cross - is £176,000.

    A season ticket for Grantham to London varies from just under £8000 to just under £9000 depending on which service you use.

    On that basis you could commute for a decade - spending £90,000 on season tickets - and still be better of by almost £180,000.
    For me it wasn't the season ticket, it's the onwards travel as well. Obviously that depends where you work, but it's an additional time and

    Grandiose said:

    I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.

    Why not?

    If you can save £100 a month for five years into a Lifetime ISA that is £6000, which can be used as a deposit of £7,200 which at 5% is a house worth £144,000.

    Near me there are new builds available at that price under the Help to Buy scheme.
    You won't get close to a mortgage for that, unless you have a £70,000+ income.
    Why not? According to Barclays website you could get a loan for much more than that based on a 20k income.
    Perhaps I misunderstood which was the share pre- and post- HTB, but it's a 4 to 4.5x income multiple. So the maximum mortgage on a £20,000 income is £90,000.
  • HYUFD said:

    Looks like Biden still has a clear lead at present though his pick of Harris has not made a vast difference

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1295030243892310017?s=19

    Also just got back from a very sunny week in Dorset with my partner and we got engaged too

    Congratulations!

    But Kamala Harris not markedly increasing Biden's lead is unsurprising. There cannot be too many Americans who hate Biden and were planning to vote for Trump but have now switched their allegiance because Kamala Harris has a nice smile.

    Everyone laughed when Dan Quayle misspelled potato(e). No-one changed their vote.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,829
    Any American residents in tonight? Should we be worried about riots in Portland, Seattle etc? Are New York and Chicago really turning into urban wastelands and murder-ridden hellholes? And if so, are there political implications? Twitter paintsa terrifying picture but Twitter is as unbalanced as a particularly unbalanced thing. Any sane views welcomed!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,560
    edited August 2020
    Grandiose said:

    No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
    A quick google tells me that the average house price in London is £435,000.

    The average house price in Grantham - which is 1 hr 15 minutes from Kings Cross - is £176,000.

    A season ticket for Grantham to London varies from just under £8000 to just under £9000 depending on which service you use.

    On that basis you could commute for a decade - spending £90,000 on season tickets - and still be better of by almost £180,000.
    For me it wasn't the season ticket, it's the onwards travel as well. Obviously that depends where you work, but it's an additional time and
    But the onwards travel applies no matter where you live in London unless you are one of the very fortunate few who lives within walking distance of their work. And Kings Cross is well in towards the centre of London. Most people who live in London probably live further from their work than Kings Cross.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Biden still has a clear lead at present though his pick of Harris has not made a vast difference

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1295030243892310017?s=19

    Also just got back from a very sunny week in Dorset with my partner and we got engaged too

    Congratulations!

    But Kamala Harris not markedly increasing Biden's lead is unsurprising. There cannot be too many Americans who hate Biden and were planning to vote for Trump but have now switched their allegiance because Kamala Harris has a nice smile.

    Everyone laughed when Dan Quayle misspelled potato(e). No-one changed their vote.
    Thanks.

    Yes I agree Harris was picked more on the basis of being a potential POTUS if needed and being a safe pair of hands rather than on the basis she would pick up many new voters
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2020
    Grandiose said:

    Grandiose said:

    I'm not saying you shouldn't have a deposit, I am saying that you shouldn't need parental help to afford it, which is the reality for most people in my position.

    Saving for five years (on an average salary) will put you nowhere close to being able to afford a deposit.

    Why not?

    If you can save £100 a month for five years into a Lifetime ISA that is £6000, which can be used as a deposit of £7,200 which at 5% is a house worth £144,000.

    Near me there are new builds available at that price under the Help to Buy scheme.
    You won't get close to a mortgage for that, unless you have a £70,000+ income.
    Why not? According to Barclays website you could get a loan for much more than that based on a 20k income.
    Perhaps I misunderstood which was the share pre- and post- HTB, but it's a 4 to 4.5x income multiple. So the maximum mortgage on a £20,000 income is £90,000.
    HTB outside London is 75% LTV borrowed from the bank.

    If you're buying a £144,000 home under HTB with a £7200 deposit (from £6000 of your own cash + 20%) then that's £108,000 being borrowed at 75% LTV.

    You do not by any means need an income of £70,000 to borrow £108,000. That would be a 1.54x multiple.

    At £20,000 income with 2 people on the mortgage you can borrow £180,000 at a 4.5x multiple.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    No doubt the next piece of condescending advice will be "just move".

    £144,000 will buy you nothing in the proximity of London.

    I'm a Northerner, I can't speak about London. I have no intention of speaking about London.

    But yes Londoners should commute is the general idea isn't it? Not that it is my area of expertise, so I am not speaking about London. But Londoners also earn more wages so should be able to save more than £100 a month hopefully.

    For a couple if they could save £250 a month for five years between them that would provide the deposit of a £360,000 house.
    Do you know how much commuting costs?

    I feel like you're talking out of your rear.
    A quick google tells me that the average house price in London is £435,000.

    The average house price in Grantham - which is 1 hr 15 minutes from Kings Cross - is £176,000.

    A season ticket for Grantham to London varies from just under £8000 to just under £9000 depending on which service you use.

    On that basis you could commute for a decade - spending £90,000 on season tickets - and still be better of by almost £180,000.
    Commuting all week into London on crappy trains is absolutely ghastly, though FWIW I think you'd be quite unlucky in future if you were forced to keep doing that, anyway. The railway station car park here in the middle commuter belt (about 45 mins from Kings Cross) used to be practically full with, at a guess, about 300 cars every weekday. Nowadays they get about two dozen.

    For most workers who used to go to offices in London, the days of having to shell out £5,000+ for a season ticket are over for good. In the medium term, those that do have to keep going in will be travelling part-time only, and many of them will probably be allowed to work flexible hours to avoid peak fares (if, indeed, the whole concept of peak fares, and milking those forced to pay them, even survives the fallout from the WFH revolution.)

    Add to that the fact that the railways are going to have to be nationalised, which will apply a lot more direct pressure on ministers rather than the hated franchise operators to control fare inflation, and average commuting costs should tumble.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    a) These are pathetically weedy words
    b) She's not Scottish Tory Leader.

    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1294952931066863617?s=20

    Also

    (c) she's interfering in a purely English matter.

    Where are the outcries from PBTories?
    Ruth Davidson is the leader the party needs in Westminster to be honest
    Yet your own party has a doctrine of denying Scots [edit] MPs the premiership. Is it ready to accept a peer for prime minister?

    To be honest I would like her to stand in a seat and be elected as a conservative mp
    FPT: in an English, or Welsh, seat? Which would you prefer, as a matter of interest? It would have to be English, actually.

    Else it is pointless under the Cameron doctrine of EVEL, presaged by Mr Johnson in that article of 2005 in which he said how outrageous it would be to have a Scottish MP as PM>
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,210
    The Oxford and Moderna vaccines have now been in Phase 3 for about three weeks now, and thousands of people will have received doses of each.

    The very first preliminary data will start appearing in the next few weeks, as (at the very least) people in the control group will find themselves getting CV-19.

    Oxford has the slight advantage as far as early testing goes because their vaccine is being trialled in countries with higher incidences of CV-19, while Moderna is mostly being tested in the US.

    Nevertheless, we may well get some encouraging news sooner rather than later. (Albeit we may also get negative news!)
  • I'm back.

    For me, I would be happy to commute into London in the future but for now my job is in London and that is where my friends and my social activities are.

    So whilst I appreciate the advice on commuting in from far away, it's simply not feasible for me to do that. And frankly I simply do not think I should have to game the system in order to live where I want to.

    The good Software Eng jobs are mostly concentrated around and and in London and since I have no intention of leaving, that is where I will keep working.

    Like I said, many like me are in the same boat. We simply cannot afford a house in London or near by, without parental assistance. To me that's a massive scandal and an issue the Tories have failed to resolve.

    I wish I had the luxury of working elsewhere but especially in the current climate, I am going to stick working where I can.

    I hope the new ways of working will mean in time I can work from further out - but I do not see this having a huge impact regardless of where I commute in from, as I do not want to be too far away from my relatives or friends.

    I hope that makes sense.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,036
    Checking the weather forecast, it looks like my staycation is going to be a stayindoorscation.

    More time to post on PB then!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719

    Charles said:

    Hence you need to reduce house prices over time by basically keeping them as flat as possible in nominal terms while wages increase. You can’t just cut prices because that will destroy the banking sector.

    House prices fell in the 1990s without destroying the banking sector.
    The negative equity that didn't resolve itself until the latter 90s was pretty miserable though, and the 12% interest rate on my first mortgage.

    Fox jr has just bought (with his partner) a terraced house in fashionable Clarendon Park for £200 000, so nearly 5 times what I paid for a near identical house in 1992 when I moved to Leicester. The price is quite inflated, but his mortgage payments are more affordable as a percentage of income than mine were those decades ago.

    Yes, he has student loan repayments, but I was paying 25% income tax, and with a much lower personal allowance, so tax is pretty much a wash too.



  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    @CorrectHorseBattery - out of interest, are you originally from London?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Biden still has a clear lead at present though his pick of Harris has not made a vast difference

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1295030243892310017?s=19

    Also just got back from a very sunny week in Dorset with my partner and we got engaged too

    Congrats!
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221
    Cookie said:

    Any American residents in tonight? Should we be worried about riots in Portland, Seattle etc? Are New York and Chicago really turning into urban wastelands and murder-ridden hellholes? And if so, are there political implications? Twitter paintsa terrifying picture but Twitter is as unbalanced as a particularly unbalanced thing. Any sane views welcomed!

    That stats out of NYC are pretty terrifying. If we think London is bad, NYC is in every way worse. Many have left. The tax base crumples. Fifth Avenue is shuttered.

    New York is finished for a decade, methinks,
This discussion has been closed.