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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
I'm in a similar position, single, early 30s, renting in London for the past ten years.
I've a decent income (top 10 percentile) and a deposit saved up that would be fine anywhere outside of London.
To be honest, moving to suburbia (having grown up there) and doing an hour-ish commute fills me with dread. But I similarly can't bring myself to drop getting on for half a mil for a shoebox in Zone 3.
I know, worlds smallest violin and all that. I've a new role that affords me a bit of location flexibility, so I'm thinking about Manchester. Parents are down South, but I've family up there. And I hear they love Southerners... what could go wrong...
I know of a nice one bed flat for sale in Zone 1 for 400. Lovely little stroll to Canary Wharf/Greenwich
Relative only to other London areas, Canary Wharf and Isle of Dogs are actually reasonable value. Only 20% overpriced, not 40% overpriced!
Although the stroll to one of the locations must involve the foot tunnel which imo is far from lovely!
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Potentially very interested in the commuter belt as I said above. If that's what I have to do, then that's what I have to do!
Away from the noise, weren't Comprehensive school's results were graded up by the same rate as the Privates?
Can anyone refute this? I thought both Comprehensives and Private School's A Grades went up about 10%
Private school grades inflated by more than state schools as a consequence of the pandemic process used this year. Sorry for no numbers and no link but this is my clear recollection of the detail when I read it.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Not necessarily averse to the commuter belt in the future, something I would think about possibly.
It's not my preferred choice but if needs must!
In that case come to Lincolnshire. Its lovely up here, faster into London than much of the commuter belt as we are on the mainline and a fraction of the prices.
Also a fine quality of people up here as exemplified by yours truly.
I'm in a similar position, single, early 30s, renting in London for the past ten years.
I've a decent income (top 10 percentile) and a deposit saved up that would be fine anywhere outside of London.
To be honest, moving to suburbia (having grown up there) and doing an hour-ish commute fills me with dread. But I similarly can't bring myself to drop getting on for half a mil for a shoebox in Zone 3.
I know, worlds smallest violin and all that. I've a new role that affords me a bit of location flexibility, so I'm thinking about Manchester. Parents are down South, but I've family up there. And I hear they love Southerners... what could go wrong...
I know of a nice one bed flat for sale in Zone 1 for 400. Lovely little stroll to Canary Wharf/Greenwich
Twice the price of a 2 bed terrace in fashionable Clarendon Park, just an hour commute to St Pancras, with two trains per hour. Even a twenty something couple in starter jobs can afford to buy.
Life exists outside London. I trained there but have never regretted moving to the Midlands.
You too Mr Battery! Building more, is of course the answer for London. Clearly not going to happen though under the current system... too many vested interests for the government to allow a house price crash. I fear the best we can hope for is for a flatlining, and a gradual re-balancing vs salaries.
My mate is in the industry, and he reckons there's a huge oversupply of 1-2 bed new builds in London coming up - overseas buyers not present in the numbers anticipated. Obviously, the "luxury" new builds aren't exactly what families want.
I am completely in favour of dispersing the economy so it is not focussed on London. Let's get on with it Mr Johnson
Part of the issue with this is that for our type of job people want to be in London. If my workplace tried to ship me out to Bristol or Edinburgh I'd be handing my notice in and looking for a job based in London. A really good friend of mine from Northumberland had the opportunity to move back up north with her company, they asked if she wanted to go and the next day she was looking for a new job in case her role was moved. Happily it was and they gave her a redundancy package about a week before she got a new job in January.
You too Mr Battery! Building more, is of course the answer for London. Clearly not going to happen though under the current system... too many vested interests for the government to allow a house price crash. I fear the best we can hope for is for a flatlining, and a gradual re-balancing vs salaries.
My mate is in the industry, and he reckons there's a huge oversupply of 1-2 bed new builds in London coming up - overseas buyers not present in the numbers anticipated. Obviously, the "luxury" new builds aren't exactly what families want.
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.
so house prices trebled under new labour but you think its the tories problem to resolve?
The issue for London house prices is that -
1) The population of London was (and is) growing rapidly 2) It is deliberate and long term policy, by all parties, to prevent house building on the scale of the population growth of London.
There are 3 answers that I can think of -
1) Stop the population of London growing. 2) Let the village of the green belt expand and merge to form new suburbs. 3) Super fast public transport to very large new satellite towns.
3) is less popular at the moment... 2) Is against the modern Religion Of The Environment* :
*As opposed to actually doing things that preserve the actual... environment. The religious stuff version is on a par with getting your instructions from spontaneous combusting shrubbery.
Your analysis is missing the financial speculation on the housing market encouraged by successive govts, creating a feedback loop where most people in the country believe prices only ever go up. Combined with a shocking understanding of other forms of investment and saving and govt money printing on a scale never seen before, it is not surprising that house prices have become a dangerous bubble.
That only really began under gordon brown who massively deregulated buy to let and also allowed property to be part of pensions
Yes it began under new Labour and has been followed by the Tories who added on the vast QE (Labour would probably have done similar). AIUI QE for the first couple of years after the crash was necessary but should have been tapered off far more quickly. Both parties are to blame on this one, and no party has really demonstrated an understanding of the problems and presented good solutions.
Whether that is from incompetence or fear of upsetting voters I dont know.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
Why do you think you should be able to afford that? Why are you better than all the other people in the world who are competing for the limited number of residential units?
The solution is to build more houses, so houses are more affordable.
My belief is that somebody earning a decent salary, paying their taxes and contributing should be able to afford a house near to where they work. That's the kind of country I want to live in!
Land is a scarce resource, especially in desirable parts of the country
I am completely in favour of dispersing the economy so it is not focussed on London. Let's get on with it Mr Johnson
Part of the issue with this is that for our type of job people want to be in London. If my workplace tried to ship me out to Bristol or Edinburgh I'd be handing my notice in and looking for a job based in London. A really good friend of mine from Northumberland had the opportunity to move back up north with her company, they asked if she wanted to go and the next day she was looking for a new job in case her role was moved. Happily it was and they gave her a redundancy package about a week before she got a new job in January.
Yes, that is just the sort of metropolitan attitude that led to Brexit, and also the reason the Tories will let down the Purple Wall. You can't buck the market.
I'm in a similar position, single, early 30s, renting in London for the past ten years.
I've a decent income (top 10 percentile) and a deposit saved up that would be fine anywhere outside of London.
To be honest, moving to suburbia (having grown up there) and doing an hour-ish commute fills me with dread. But I similarly can't bring myself to drop getting on for half a mil for a shoebox in Zone 3.
I know, worlds smallest violin and all that. I've a new role that affords me a bit of location flexibility, so I'm thinking about Manchester. Parents are down South, but I've family up there. And I hear they love Southerners... what could go wrong...
I know of a nice one bed flat for sale in Zone 1 for 400. Lovely little stroll to Canary Wharf/Greenwich
Twice the price of a 2 bed terrace in fashionable Clarendon Park, just an hour commute to St Pancras, with two trains per hour. Even a twenty something couple in starter jobs can afford to buy.
Life exists outside London. I trained there but have never regretted moving to the Midlands.
Yeah, but if you work in Canary Wharf its a 10 min walk to work with Greenwich and the Thames waiting for you when you get home rather than a 3 hour commute and living in Leicester!
Plus people don't look at how much it costs, its how much the monthly repayments are
You too Mr Battery! Building more, is of course the answer for London. Clearly not going to happen though under the current system... too many vested interests for the government to allow a house price crash. I fear the best we can hope for is for a flatlining, and a gradual re-balancing vs salaries.
My mate is in the industry, and he reckons there's a huge oversupply of 1-2 bed new builds in London coming up - overseas buyers not present in the numbers anticipated. Obviously, the "luxury" new builds aren't exactly what families want.
The developers just hold on to them with cheap financing rather than sell them at market clearing rates below what they want though.
The Shard had ten £50m apartments ready in 2012. None were sold by 2017, I doubt they have been since. The same happens lower down the value chain as well.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
Why do you think you should be able to afford that? Why are you better than all the other people in the world who are competing for the limited number of residential units?
The solution is to build more houses, so houses are more affordable.
My belief is that somebody earning a decent salary, paying their taxes and contributing should be able to afford a house near to where they work. That's the kind of country I want to live in!
Land is a scarce resource, especially in desirable parts of the country
I have no doubt we could build enough housing if we wanted to.
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
How? If you have ten candidates at odds of about 1.1 to get a B and 10 to get a C because of illness, should the weakest of them get a C, despite being far more likely to get a B if they took the exam, simply to make the overall grades similar to previous years. That would seem incredibly unfair to me.
You too Mr Battery! Building more, is of course the answer for London. Clearly not going to happen though under the current system... too many vested interests for the government to allow a house price crash. I fear the best we can hope for is for a flatlining, and a gradual re-balancing vs salaries.
My mate is in the industry, and he reckons there's a huge oversupply of 1-2 bed new builds in London coming up - overseas buyers not present in the numbers anticipated. Obviously, the "luxury" new builds aren't exactly what families want.
My brother trimmed his exposure to London property 18 months ago
Over the longer term, prices are simply going to have to fall. That's the bottom line.
Yes. And the good news is this is coming. There is no way - no way whatsoever - that property prices in London will not fall by at least 20% relative to wages and inflation over the next 5 years.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Not necessarily averse to the commuter belt in the future, something I would think about possibly.
It's not my preferred choice but if needs must!
In that case come to Lincolnshire. Its lovely up here, faster into London than much of the commuter belt as we are on the mainline and a fraction of the prices.
Also a fine quality of people up here as exemplified by yours truly.
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Over the longer term, prices are simply going to have to fall. That's the bottom line.
Yes. And the good news is this is coming. There is no way - no way whatsoever - that property prices in London will not fall by at least 20% relative to wages and inflation over the next 5 years.
Are you offering insurance to that effect! Its a shame the house price futures markets offered in the past by IG and the like never properly took off.
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?
They live in a dictatorship?
Being decently off as citizens of dictatorships go will forestall much open disquiet much of the time, I imagine, given general punitive measures, but it won't be a nice situation all the same.
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Small class sizes mean teachers grades, big ones the algorithm of doom.
Of course some are being unfairly upgraded, but that doesn't lessen the injury to those downgraded, indeed it rubs salt in the wounds.
Colleges, whether sixth form or FE, saw virtually no growth in grades at all, because they have lots of A level students and so were always subject to the algorithm. It's their students who have really been stuffed by this system.
That's also why state grammar schools and big indies didn't see much growth. Eton has been hit by this.
The winners from the process this year are the schools with small sixth form cohorts. They have been allowed to keep the teacher assessed grades unadjusted. Some of those will be 11-18 comps or academies (i.e. comps with a new logo). Others-probably the biggest winners of all- will be fairly minor independent schools with small intakes that most of us will never have heard of.
State comprehensives will have to have some economically viable classes (probably around 20ish in a group ideally), whereas some independent schools will have fees that make tiny classes across the board workable.
Once it became clear that the Ofqual model couldn't be applied to everyone, that ought to have been a red light to give up and try a different approach.
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Yes.
A law can be amended temporarily and return back to the status quo afterwards. These are exceptional circumstances, the exams haven't been sat there is no integrity already.
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Seems that is what Scotland have done
That's not an answer at all. If you mean to say that what they did is a good thing, and therefore we need to change the law to do the same, that would be an answer, but you haven't said that. When changing the law it's surely incumbent on us to explain the positive purpose behind doing so, not merely note that other places have different rules.
I really have no view on what to do with the education mess (and frankly I don't think Scotland or rUK do either), I'm just confused how it being pointed out they couldn't do the same thing in England means a change must be needed.
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Seems that is what Scotland have done
That's not an answer at all. If you mean to say that what they did is a good thing, and therefore we need to change the law to do the same, that would be an answer, but you haven't said that. When changing the law it's surely incumbent on us to explain the positive purpose behind doing so, not merely note that other places have different rules.
I really have no view on what to do with the education mess (and frankly I don't think Scotland or rUK do either), I'm just confused how it being pointed out they couldn't do the same thing in England means a change must be needed.
No problem in Scotland , it has been fixed, all is well and Government support has risen yet again. Tories hated more than ever , what more other than independence could one hope for.
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Yes.
A law can be amended temporarily and return back to the status quo afterwards. These are exceptional circumstances, the exams haven't been sat there is no integrity already.
Tories can fiddle anything , they have lots of form.
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Seems that is what Scotland have done
That's not an answer at all. If you mean to say that what they did is a good thing, and therefore we need to change the law to do the same, that would be an answer, but you haven't said that. When changing the law it's surely incumbent on us to explain the positive purpose behind doing so, not merely note that other places have different rules.
I really have no view on what to do with the education mess (and frankly I don't think Scotland or rUK do either), I'm just confused how it being pointed out they couldn't do the same thing in England means a change must be needed.
No it is a bad thing just to change the law for political expediency
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Yes.
A law can be amended temporarily and return back to the status quo afterwards. These are exceptional circumstances, the exams haven't been sat there is no integrity already.
I'm not opposed to changing the law in the slightest, I was just confused as nothing in the comment said why the change would be needed and the tweet certainly had nothing to justify it, simply noting that Williamson lacks options open north of the border as a result, which in itself does not justify it since for all I know other options are available which might do just fine. If they won't, and other measures are needed which require a law change, fine, that's been done probably hundreds of times already this year (depending on how many SIs have come through as a result of Coronavirus).
Colleges, whether sixth form or FE, saw virtually no growth in grades at all, because they have lots of A level students and so were always subject to the algorithm. It's their students who have really been stuffed by this system.
That's also why state grammar schools and big indies didn't see much growth. Eton has been hit by this.
The winners from the process this year are the schools with small sixth form cohorts. They have been allowed to keep the teacher assessed grades unadjusted. Some of those will be 11-18 comps or academies (i.e. comps with a new logo). Others-probably the biggest winners of all- will be fairly minor independent schools with small intakes that most of us will never have heard of.
State comprehensives will have to have some economically viable classes (probably around 20ish in a group ideally), whereas some independent schools will have fees that make tiny classes across the board workable.
Once it became clear that the Ofqual model couldn't be applied to everyone, that ought to have been a red light to give up and try a different approach.
Essentially to try and keep the grades fair to other years, they have committed the worse mistake of making the grades unfair within this year!
I'm in a similar position, single, early 30s, renting in London for the past ten years.
I've a decent income (top 10 percentile) and a deposit saved up that would be fine anywhere outside of London.
To be honest, moving to suburbia (having grown up there) and doing an hour-ish commute fills me with dread. But I similarly can't bring myself to drop getting on for half a mil for a shoebox in Zone 3.
I know, worlds smallest violin and all that. I've a new role that affords me a bit of location flexibility, so I'm thinking about Manchester. Parents are down South, but I've family up there. And I hear they love Southerners... what could go wrong...
Consider just renting while the current chaos sorts ityself out? I've done that all my life without regrets, and usually you save significantly over buying and can enjoy life instead of worrying about the roof, the boiler, etc. If your circumstances change, moving home becomes easy instead of traumatic.
Colleges, whether sixth form or FE, saw virtually no growth in grades at all, because they have lots of A level students and so were always subject to the algorithm. It's their students who have really been stuffed by this system.
That's also why state grammar schools and big indies didn't see much growth. Eton has been hit by this.
The winners from the process this year are the schools with small sixth form cohorts. They have been allowed to keep the teacher assessed grades unadjusted. Some of those will be 11-18 comps or academies (i.e. comps with a new logo). Others-probably the biggest winners of all- will be fairly minor independent schools with small intakes that most of us will never have heard of.
State comprehensives will have to have some economically viable classes (probably around 20ish in a group ideally), whereas some independent schools will have fees that make tiny classes across the board workable.
Once it became clear that the Ofqual model couldn't be applied to everyone, that ought to have been a red light to give up and try a different approach.
It hasn't really favoured the rich over the poor though has it? Those 6th form Colleges and FE's are less than 8% of the total
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Because you're looking at the wrong percentage. What matters is not those that have done well, but those who haven't done well but should have. So you need to look at not the percentage of passes, but the percentage of failures.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4% Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5% Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Because you're looking at the wrong percentage. What matters is not those that have done well, but those who haven't done well but should have. So you need to look at not the percentage of passes, but the percentage of failures.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4% Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5% Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
Why does that mean a change of law is needed? What is the purpose of it being law in the first place, and if it is a good reason is revoking it, even in an unusual situation, a good thing?
Seems that is what Scotland have done
That's not an answer at all. If you mean to say that what they did is a good thing, and therefore we need to change the law to do the same, that would be an answer, but you haven't said that. When changing the law it's surely incumbent on us to explain the positive purpose behind doing so, not merely note that other places have different rules.
I really have no view on what to do with the education mess (and frankly I don't think Scotland or rUK do either), I'm just confused how it being pointed out they couldn't do the same thing in England means a change must be needed.
No problem in Scotland , it has been fixed, all is well and Government support has risen yet again. Tories hated more than ever , what more other than independence could one hope for.
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Because you're looking at the wrong percentage. What matters is not those that have done well, but those who haven't done well but should have. So you need to look at not the percentage of passes, but the percentage of failures.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4% Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5% Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
That's worse for the rich isn't it?
No. You want the proportion NOT to get a good grade to go down.
The proportion NOT to get an A going down by 8.4% is miles better than going down by 2.5% The proportion NOT to get a C or above going down by 18.5% is miles better than going down by 8.9%
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Because you're looking at the wrong percentage. What matters is not those that have done well, but those who haven't done well but should have. So you need to look at not the percentage of passes, but the percentage of failures.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4% Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5% Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
That's worse for the rich isn't it?
No. You want the proportion NOT to get a good grade to go down.
The proportion NOT to get an A going down by 8.4% is miles better than going down by 2.5% The proportion NOT to get a C or above going down by 18.5% is miles better than going down by 8.9%
You've lost me.
I have had an extremely long and stressful weekend, and don't really care about this subject much anyway. I don't feel the way to unwind is to get involved in a row about it with you, so farewell
Colleges, whether sixth form or FE, saw virtually no growth in grades at all, because they have lots of A level students and so were always subject to the algorithm. It's their students who have really been stuffed by this system.
That's also why state grammar schools and big indies didn't see much growth. Eton has been hit by this.
The winners from the process this year are the schools with small sixth form cohorts. They have been allowed to keep the teacher assessed grades unadjusted. Some of those will be 11-18 comps or academies (i.e. comps with a new logo). Others-probably the biggest winners of all- will be fairly minor independent schools with small intakes that most of us will never have heard of.
State comprehensives will have to have some economically viable classes (probably around 20ish in a group ideally), whereas some independent schools will have fees that make tiny classes across the board workable.
Once it became clear that the Ofqual model couldn't be applied to everyone, that ought to have been a red light to give up and try a different approach.
It hasn't really favoured the rich over the poor though has it? Those 6th form Colleges and FE's are less than 8% of the total
8% of the centres, sure. But a lot more than 8% of the candidates.
To take a local example, Havering Sixth Form College has about 2500 students. A school sixth form of 300 is pretty chunky.
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Because you're looking at the wrong percentage. What matters is not those that have done well, but those who haven't done well but should have. So you need to look at not the percentage of passes, but the percentage of failures.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4% Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5% Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
That's worse for the rich isn't it?
No. You want the proportion NOT to get a good grade to go down.
The proportion NOT to get an A going down by 8.4% is miles better than going down by 2.5% The proportion NOT to get a C or above going down by 18.5% is miles better than going down by 8.9%
You've lost me.
I have had an extremely long and stressful weekend, and don't really care about this subject much anyway. I don't feel the way to unwind is to get involved in a row about it with you, so farewell
Lets say that you were worried about being in a car crash - would you rather have your risk of a car crash go down by 8.4% or go down by 2.5% ?
People getting a better grade than they should have isn't the problem. People getting a worse grade than they should have is the problem. That's much more likely in the Comprehensive than Independent sector.
Colleges, whether sixth form or FE, saw virtually no growth in grades at all, because they have lots of A level students and so were always subject to the algorithm. It's their students who have really been stuffed by this system.
That's also why state grammar schools and big indies didn't see much growth. Eton has been hit by this.
The winners from the process this year are the schools with small sixth form cohorts. They have been allowed to keep the teacher assessed grades unadjusted. Some of those will be 11-18 comps or academies (i.e. comps with a new logo). Others-probably the biggest winners of all- will be fairly minor independent schools with small intakes that most of us will never have heard of.
State comprehensives will have to have some economically viable classes (probably around 20ish in a group ideally), whereas some independent schools will have fees that make tiny classes across the board workable.
Once it became clear that the Ofqual model couldn't be applied to everyone, that ought to have been a red light to give up and try a different approach.
It hasn't really favoured the rich over the poor though has it? Those 6th form Colleges and FE's are less than 8% of the total
8% of the centres, sure. But a lot more than 8% of the candidates.
To take a local example, Havering Sixth Form College has about 2500 students. A school sixth form of 300 is pretty chunky.
My claim to fame is that I scored the first ever goal for that college's football team
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Because you're looking at the wrong percentage. What matters is not those that have done well, but those who haven't done well but should have. So you need to look at not the percentage of passes, but the percentage of failures.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4% Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5% Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
That's worse for the rich isn't it?
No. You want the proportion NOT to get a good grade to go down.
The proportion NOT to get an A going down by 8.4% is miles better than going down by 2.5% The proportion NOT to get a C or above going down by 18.5% is miles better than going down by 8.9%
You've lost me.
I have had an extremely long and stressful weekend, and don't really care about this subject much anyway. I don't feel the way to unwind is to get involved in a row about it with you, so farewell
Lets say that you were worried about being in a car crash - would you rather have your risk of a car crash go down by 8.4% or go down by 2.5% ?
People getting a better grade than they should have isn't the problem. People getting a worse grade than they should have is the problem. That's much more likely in the Comprehensive than Independent sector.
Righto. I only saw the figures for the grade inflation I think
I'm in a similar position, single, early 30s, renting in London for the past ten years.
I've a decent income (top 10 percentile) and a deposit saved up that would be fine anywhere outside of London.
To be honest, moving to suburbia (having grown up there) and doing an hour-ish commute fills me with dread. But I similarly can't bring myself to drop getting on for half a mil for a shoebox in Zone 3.
I know, worlds smallest violin and all that. I've a new role that affords me a bit of location flexibility, so I'm thinking about Manchester. Parents are down South, but I've family up there. And I hear they love Southerners... what could go wrong...
Consider just renting while the current chaos sorts ityself out? I've done that all my life without regrets, and usually you save significantly over buying and can enjoy life instead of worrying about the roof, the boiler, etc. If your circumstances change, moving home becomes easy instead of traumatic.
Yes, that's the short term plan, see where we stand post Brexit and Covid. I've never seen home ownership as the be all and end all, but I do feel some sort of property owning end game has to be in sight!
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
Would that have much effect?
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
That's true but the issue isn't the percentages its the individual cases.
The thing is, every year some people mess up their exams and don't get what they thought they would. Surely when predicting the grades whoever is doing so has to take that into account?
Only if they can accurately predict who would mess up their exams without making any errors.
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
OK. But why is it perceived to be the well off that have had it off due to the way that it has been worked out, at the expense of the poorest kids, when Comps have gone up as much as Private Schools, and Academies up quite a bit too?
Because you're looking at the wrong percentage. What matters is not those that have done well, but those who haven't done well but should have. So you need to look at not the percentage of passes, but the percentage of failures.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4% Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5% Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
That's worse for the rich isn't it?
No. You want the proportion NOT to get a good grade to go down.
The proportion NOT to get an A going down by 8.4% is miles better than going down by 2.5% The proportion NOT to get a C or above going down by 18.5% is miles better than going down by 8.9%
You've lost me.
I have had an extremely long and stressful weekend, and don't really care about this subject much anyway. I don't feel the way to unwind is to get involved in a row about it with you, so farewell
Lets say that you were worried about being in a car crash - would you rather have your risk of a car crash go down by 8.4% or go down by 2.5% ?
People getting a better grade than they should have isn't the problem. People getting a worse grade than they should have is the problem. That's much more likely in the Comprehensive than Independent sector.
Righto. I only saw the figures for the grade inflation I think
The inflation isn't the problem though, the problem is people missing out. For that you need to look at the inverse which makes the percentages much, much worse.
For not getting As: Independent 51.4 didn't get an A in 2020, 56.1 in 2019. -4.7 or 8.4% Comprehensive 78.2 didn't get an A in 2020, 80.2 in 2019. -2.0 or 2.5%
So yes the Independent sectors haven't had much inflation relative to the proportion who were already doing well . . . but they have had a much greater reduction in the number of people who weren't doing well.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
Would that have much effect?
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
Would that have much effect?
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
Are those foreign-resident foreigners? Or foreigners who live in Britain, which shouldn't really count.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
Would that have much effect?
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
I think @MaxPB has a habit of doing that, which was why I asked him.
Since London has built 300k new homes since 2011, or about 33k a year, 13 % is 4k per year or so.
Given that there are just under 4 million dwellings in London, that is 0.1% per year.
Somehow think that won't shift the market for our friend Max, even if I am out by a factor of 10.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
Would that have much effect?
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
I think @MaxPB has a habit of doing that, which was why I asked him.
Since London has built 300k new homes since 2011, or about 33k a year, 13 % is 4k per year or so.
Given that there are just under 4 million dwellings in London, that is 0.1% per year.
Somehow think that won't shift the market for our friend Max, even if I am out by a factor of 10.
13% is quite significant, even if not as significant as Max implies. Adding that 13% (if they are unoccupied) back onto the market would be the equivalent of increasing house building by 15%
Ronnie should win SPOTY imo . Amazing fact that Ronnie O Sullivan once played a competitive match with (not Steve) but Fred Davis when he was nearly 80 and Ronnie in his teens (over a 60 year age gap ) - i believe Ronnie won it 6-1. Snooker has a great history
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
I was told last week that she was the third choice.
Klobuchar was first, but then Minnesota happened (that’s what my source said but I don’t know what they were referring to)
Whitman was second but she turned it down. Partly to focus on Covid, but also because she thought that she would get all sorts of shit tipped on her by BLM because she is white & it would damage her long term political career
Kamala was third choice and made at quite short notice (hence the focus of Beau’s relationship with her - Biden didn’t have a compelling argument to make as you why he wanted her as his VP.
Who knows whether it’s true or not (my source isn’t in Biden’s inner circle) but it’s plausible at least
"Minnesota happened" = killing of George Floyd.
Which indeed scuppered whatever chance Sen. Klobuchar had this year. However, that was MONTHS before Biden made his final decision.
Part of VP consideration / vetting / selection is that potential picks go up and down and (sometimes) back up as the process proceeds.
Whitman turned it down because it would effect her long term political career? Hmmm. Colour me sceptical.
Being veep to a guy who is 77? That's not a career move?
We do know Gretchen Whitmer was summoned to a meeting with Biden just a fortnight ago, so @Charles's sequence is broadly plausible even if incomplete. It does certainly look as if Kamala Harris was not Biden's first choice, even if she was always the most solid option. But as well as those mentioned, there was also evidence that Susan Rice, Karen Bass and Tammy Duckworth were seriously considered.
It sounds no more plausible than any of a dozen accounts from unattributed sources. Was Charles’ source even a Democrat ?
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
Would that have much effect?
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
I think @MaxPB has a habit of doing that, which was why I asked him.
Since London has built 300k new homes since 2011, or about 33k a year, 13 % is 4k per year or so.
Given that there are just under 4 million dwellings in London, that is 0.1% per year.
Somehow think that won't shift the market for our friend Max, even if I am out by a factor of 10.
13% is quite significant, even if not as significant as Max implies. Adding that 13% (if they are unoccupied) back onto the market would be the equivalent of increasing house building by 15%
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
You need to look at what's built and left empty, not what's owned. As far as supply-and-demand goes it doesn't matter whether assets are owned by their occupiers, corporations, Chinese housewives, or martians, as long as there are people living in them.
I wonder if they have the same issue around Berlin as we (allegedly) have here (Mashiko, about 130 km from Fukushima Daiichi). They eat a lot of stuff from the soil like mushrooms, that concentrates the radioactive cesium, so even though there's generally not a problem with radiation, you get detectable levels of cesium in the wild board meat that makes people unwilling to eat them. That in turn makes them not worth hunting, their populations grow and they run amok, wrecking crops, stealing electronics from naked people and causing road accidents.
OK, it's not really fair to blame the wild boar for the road accidents since it's nearly always the human who's driving. But when a car hits a wild boar, the car comes off worse. Wild boar are built tough.
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.
At the risk of being thought brutal, that suggests that buying a house isn't exactly top priority. If it is, one moves somewhere and perhaps spends one - two years of weekends improving it, and makes new friends.
Looking around, there are houses (not flats) within 30-60 minutes' rail commute of London main stations in the £200-£250k range, and that is without following the traditional route of doer uppers and auction or repossession purchases.
I checked places like Luton and Wellingborough.
That is a far less painful route onto the housing ladder than followed by many people over the last 50 years.
My point was that I don't see why I should have to do that, that's all. I think I should be able to afford to live in, or outside London, where my friends and family are. That doesn't seem too much to ask for me.
I get what you're saying and if I was really desperate I would probably do it.
As I said, luckily I am in the privileged position of not needing to worry so much, I earn a decent salary and I have parental support if I ever fell on hard times. A lot of people do not.
For now I am continuing to rent - which feels like I am throwing money down the drain but that is the reality in terms of renting. Luckily I have other sources of income that more than cover it.
I think your expectations are off. London has morphed from being a national city to being a global city. It is horribly expensive.
You don’t have a right to live here or anywhere - you tailor your choice and make compromises as needed. I would have loved to been able to stay in the part of the country that I knew as a child, but I couldn’t afford a house and a garden. So I compromised and moved to the suburbs...
Well we disagree then and that's okay. I think somebody in my position should be able to afford to live in/just outside of London and I can't without help. I think that's unacceptable.
I accept the reality with which I am faced and that is a decision I will have to make over the next year or so - but I think my point is valid.
You don't a have a right to force other people to sell you something at a price of your choosing.
I don't think I am arguing that, I think I am arguing the price is currently too high, where most people can't afford it. To me that's unreasonable.
The solution is to build lots more houses and I am fully supportive of that approach.
As for me, I will see where things are in a year or so but I suspect I'll see what can be purchased in and around London. Touch wood I am still employed at that time.
How will building lots of new houses make it any better for you. By its very nature few of those houses will be able to be built in London itself because it is full. So they will be built in the commuter belt - the very place you are claiming you don't want to live in because it is too far from London.
Once again showing how little you know about the situation in London, there is a huge amount of housing going up, it's just being sold to dodgy foreign "investors" from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of this. But that is a separate issue and one that the Government are trying to address. Still, the amounts of development going on inside London are miniscule compared to what is needed to shift house prices. The only way that will happen is by reducing demand in London with lots of building outside. Something CHB has said he is not interested in.
Banish the foreign owners or hit them with punitive 200% annual value surcharges and you'll see just how quickly London prices start to fall. I say this as someone who would lose a fair bit from falling prices given I live in Hampstead.
Would that have much effect?
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
The Chinese buying about 6% of new housing in London is a lot higher than I would have expected.
Yesterday I posted about a possible game of brinkmanship between President Big Hat and the Russian government. How desperate was Lukashenko? Enough to acquiesce to demands for some kind of union with Russia?
Russian foreign ministry readouts of the Putin/Luksahenko call(s) mention a 'union'. Its pretty explicit. No such emphasis in Belarus state news agency reports of these calls about a 'union state'
The tone of Russian state media is shifting too. The protests are getting lumped in with the so-called colour revolutions, the idea of outside forces stirring trouble has been mentioned.
Lukashenko has been bigging up the external threat from the West, announcing troop deployments to the Polish & Lithuanian borders. This external threat idea is a cornerstone of long standing arrangements between the two countries, i.e. a trigger for Russian intervention. It's patent bullshit that NATO is massing and the external forces stirring trouble line is a bit of a credibility stretch. A cynic may suggest that its a good idea to move parts of your military out of the way, especially if you aren't sure you can rely on it.
On the other hand, what if Russian sent in their National Guard to 'support stability in Belarus'? Despite the name, the National Guard is a paramilitary police force, not a conventional military one and is well suited to assisting with maintaining law & order. The fig technicality is that any Russian intervention is not a military invasion. But then, Vietnam was described as a police action for many years.
Russian foreign ministry readouts of the Putin/Luksahenko call(s) mention a 'union'. Its pretty explicit. No such emphasis in Belarus state news agency reports of these calls about a 'union state'
Foreigners buy about 13% of new build housing in London, about half are Chinese. So it's a significant, but not overwhelming, share. In general, their role in London, except right at the top end of the market, is wildly exaggerated.
You need to look at what's built and left empty, not what's owned. As far as supply-and-demand goes it doesn't matter whether assets are owned by their occupiers, corporations, Chinese housewives, or martians, as long as there are people living in them.
Of course it matters, life as a renter and owner are very different. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but they are different, and the differences do really matter.
This survey of London housing has 97% of owners being satisfied with their form of tenure, compared to 63% renting privately, which is a fair bit less than those satisfied on social rents, 75%.
If it didnt matter the percentages would be the same.
Comments
No Deal, RIP UK
The key metric isn’t house prices but the price/income ratio
Although the stroll to one of the locations must involve the foot tunnel which imo is far from lovely!
Also a fine quality of people up here as exemplified by yours truly.
Comp C Grades went up 3.4%, Private only 2.6% Academies 2.5%
Am I messing this up? Can't be so can it, given the fuss?
https://twitter.com/michaelgoodier/status/1293835511266713601?s=20
Life exists outside London. I trained there but have never regretted moving to the Midlands.
My mate is in the industry, and he reckons there's a huge oversupply of 1-2 bed new builds in London coming up - overseas buyers not present in the numbers anticipated. Obviously, the "luxury" new builds aren't exactly what families want.
He just can't let us see it...
The ratio is what matters in both. Controlling one side of the ratio while the other grows brings it down.
Sadly it's of a levelling down nature.
Plus people don't look at how much it costs, its how much the monthly repayments are
The Shard had ten £50m apartments ready in 2012. None were sold by 2017, I doubt they have been since. The same happens lower down the value chain as well.
We have come full circle
Otherwise you are in “when did you stop beating your wife” territory
https://twitter.com/Cravenma/status/1294905988718514176?s=19
If you can't then you're simply punishing people who would have done well in place of those who would have messed up their exams.
Its not complex: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Being decently off as citizens of dictatorships go will forestall much open disquiet much of the time, I imagine, given general punitive measures, but it won't be a nice situation all the same.
Of course some are being unfairly upgraded, but that doesn't lessen the injury to those downgraded, indeed it rubs salt in the wounds.
Colleges, whether sixth form or FE, saw virtually no growth in grades at all, because they have lots of A level students and so were always subject to the algorithm. It's their students who have really been stuffed by this system.
That's also why state grammar schools and big indies didn't see much growth. Eton has been hit by this.
The winners from the process this year are the schools with small sixth form cohorts. They have been allowed to keep the teacher assessed grades unadjusted. Some of those will be 11-18 comps or academies (i.e. comps with a new logo). Others-probably the biggest winners of all- will be fairly minor independent schools with small intakes that most of us will never have heard of.
State comprehensives will have to have some economically viable classes (probably around 20ish in a group ideally), whereas some independent schools will have fees that make tiny classes across the board workable.
Once it became clear that the Ofqual model couldn't be applied to everyone, that ought to have been a red light to give up and try a different approach.
A law can be amended temporarily and return back to the status quo afterwards. These are exceptional circumstances, the exams haven't been sat there is no integrity already.
I really have no view on what to do with the education mess (and frankly I don't think Scotland or rUK do either), I'm just confused how it being pointed out they couldn't do the same thing in England means a change must be needed.
Independent students NOT to get an A have gone down by 8.4%
Comprehensive students NOT to get an A have gone down by 2.5%
Independent students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 18.5%
Comprehensive students NOT to get a C or above have gone down by 8.9%
The proportion NOT to get an A going down by 8.4% is miles better than going down by 2.5%
The proportion NOT to get a C or above going down by 18.5% is miles better than going down by 8.9%
I have had an extremely long and stressful weekend, and don't really care about this subject much anyway. I don't feel the way to unwind is to get involved in a row about it with you, so farewell
To take a local example, Havering Sixth Form College has about 2500 students. A school sixth form of 300 is pretty chunky.
People getting a better grade than they should have isn't the problem. People getting a worse grade than they should have is the problem. That's much more likely in the Comprehensive than Independent sector.
What % of the 3.5 million dwellings in London are owned by foreigners and not used by Brits?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=children+of+men+britain+stands+alone&docid=607989231083129890&mid=6DE4735729379B06DC416DE4735729379B06DC41&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
For not getting As:
Independent 51.4 didn't get an A in 2020, 56.1 in 2019. -4.7 or 8.4%
Comprehensive 78.2 didn't get an A in 2020, 80.2 in 2019. -2.0 or 2.5%
So yes the Independent sectors haven't had much inflation relative to the proportion who were already doing well . . . but they have had a much greater reduction in the number of people who weren't doing well.
Make sense?
No, not the American election, the New Zealand one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53796434
https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngovmb/documents/s58641/08b2c University of York data report.pdf
That said, that's new purchases - actual owership must be much lower. That said, a part-Quatari company owns more of London than TfL plus the Queen:
https://www.cityam.com/owns-london-capitals-biggest-landowners-qataris-own-much/
Since London has built 300k new homes since 2011, or about 33k a year, 13 % is 4k per year or so.
Given that there are just under 4 million dwellings in London, that is 0.1% per year.
Somehow think that won't shift the market for our friend Max, even if I am out by a factor of 10.
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51577853
https://twitter.com/Psythor/status/1294278626314194944
I wonder if they have the same issue around Berlin as we (allegedly) have here (Mashiko, about 130 km from Fukushima Daiichi). They eat a lot of stuff from the soil like mushrooms, that concentrates the radioactive cesium, so even though there's generally not a problem with radiation, you get detectable levels of cesium in the wild board meat that makes people unwilling to eat them. That in turn makes them not worth hunting, their populations grow and they run amok, wrecking crops, stealing electronics from naked people and causing road accidents.
OK, it's not really fair to blame the wild boar for the road accidents since it's nearly always the human who's driving. But when a car hits a wild boar, the car comes off worse. Wild boar are built tough.
Yesterday I posted about a possible game of brinkmanship between President Big Hat and the Russian government. How desperate was Lukashenko? Enough to acquiesce to demands for some kind of union with Russia?
Russian foreign ministry readouts of the Putin/Luksahenko call(s) mention a 'union'. Its pretty explicit. No such emphasis in Belarus state news agency reports of these calls about a 'union state'
The tone of Russian state media is shifting too. The protests are getting lumped in with the so-called colour revolutions, the idea of outside forces stirring trouble has been mentioned.
Lukashenko has been bigging up the external threat from the West, announcing troop deployments to the Polish & Lithuanian borders. This external threat idea is a cornerstone of long standing arrangements between the two countries, i.e. a trigger for Russian intervention. It's patent bullshit that NATO is massing and the external forces stirring trouble line is a bit of a credibility stretch. A cynic may suggest that its a good idea to move parts of your military out of the way, especially if you aren't sure you can rely on it.
On the other hand, what if Russian sent in their National Guard to 'support stability in Belarus'? Despite the name, the National Guard is a paramilitary police force, not a conventional military one and is well suited to assisting with maintaining law & order. The fig technicality is that any Russian intervention is not a military invasion. But then, Vietnam was described as a police action for many years.
This survey of London housing has 97% of owners being satisfied with their form of tenure, compared to 63% renting privately, which is a fair bit less than those satisfied on social rents, 75%.
If it didnt matter the percentages would be the same.