Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Next -"de Beers help keep the price of diamonds down..."
Since de Beers mine diamonds, they do. If de Beers didn't exist, with nothing replacing it, then diamonds would go up in cost. Its like supply and demand is an alien concept to you.
The issue isn't the supply, its the lack of other suppliers too. The lack of supply on housing is by design of those who vote to constrain land availability - not builders who build on the scraps of land made available to them. It would be easy enough to release ever more land to even more builders - but the Councils by and large don't want to do that. So easier to blame the builders than blame the Councils or voters.
You can't apply first year undergrad economics to diamonds like that. Diamonds have no intrinsic value and don't store value in the way that gold does. The demand for them is based largely on cultural perceptions, and much of that has been ruthlessly engineered by De Beers to improve their profitability.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
Actually, HMS Tamar looks quite impressive. No idea if she is well armed or anything, but she looks good
Voted. My franchise has been well and truly exercised with three ballot papers.
No tellers; one chap in a council hi-vis outside, presumably to marshal the non-existent crowds. One young family was taking selfies by the polling station sign in the car park.
No queues; four of us voting when I was there.
Two things I don't remember seeing before: all three ballot papers went into the same ballot box; and a firm instruction not to fold the (A4 size) ballot papers.
I'm not looking forward to verification - county, parish, pcc, local referendums, all in the same box to be sorted, then verified.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
In the shared ownership case you quote, who owns the other 75% and why do they not share the liability if the owner is to be liable?
Is it a matter of a questionable categorisation as "maintenance" and the person who lives there signed up to pay maintenance?
Thanks
When you sign up to a leasehold you sign up to 100% of the costs of maintaining that building, even if you only own a percentage of the building.
But the truth is you never actually own _any_ of the building. You merely lease it from the freeholder for a set amount of time - effectively you are a long term tenant with the ability to sell your lease on to someone else.
The freeholder owns the building. This is where it gets complicated. The original developer of the building often sells off the freehold to an investor, who may not be based in the Uk and ownership can be obscured through a series of shell companies. Making it difficult if not outright impossible to force the freeholder to pay the costs of rectifying the defects. Hence the reason why the government is so keen to pass costs on to leaseholders.
Remember, leaseholders own nothing other than a scrap of paper that entitles them to rent a property for a set number of years.
Even without the cladding scandal, you are beholden to the freeholder for how much repairs, service charges etc cost - mismanagement and corruption are rife and leaseholders have little option but to accept all costs the freeholder chooses to pass on to them.
The advice is obviously to never buy leasehold, however for people who can only own a flat (or who live in London, where freeholds are rare and prohibitively expensive), there isn't much choice if you wan to "own" property rather than rent on an assured shorthold tenancy.
We've discussed the cladding scandal at length in this thread, but it's worth pointing out that leasehold as a system exists in England only and the rest of the world thinks it's bonkers.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
The idea parties need a humiliation to wake up to some hard truths is rather disproved by how long it takes parties in the doldrums to realise they need to turn things around in a major way. If such is needed, only time provides it, not a bad result in an election - they've already had that!
And the idea Boris could be on the ropes from a bad set of local elections, given his majority, is pretty risible.
I am seriously thinking of voting labour for the first time in my life. Not because I like or endorse them but because it is the best way (assuming others do as well) to give a kick to the populist clown.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
Lovely argument but I don't believe Denmark has a First past the post electoral system - so how elections work there doesn't help parties in the UK
The proposition is earlier in the article. The Denmark comparison is to make the point that the outcome is workable in office.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Next -"de Beers help keep the price of diamonds down..."
Since de Beers mine diamonds, they do. If de Beers didn't exist, with nothing replacing it, then diamonds would go up in cost. Its like supply and demand is an alien concept to you.
The issue isn't the supply, its the lack of other suppliers too. The lack of supply on housing is by design of those who vote to constrain land availability - not builders who build on the scraps of land made available to them. It would be easy enough to release ever more land to even more builders - but the Councils by and large don't want to do that. So easier to blame the builders than blame the Councils or voters.
You can't apply first year undergrad economics to diamonds like that. Diamonds have no intrinsic value and don't store value in the way that gold does. The demand for them is based largely on cultural perceptions, and much of that has been ruthlessly engineered by De Beers to improve their profitability.
As someone who didn't even do first year economics, why can gold store value but diamonds cannot?
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Not quite: Tamar does (or should) have a 30mm automatic cannon as well as two x MG. Presumably the modern equivalent of the 40mm L/70 Bofors you used to get on all the little ships such as the Ton class minesweepers.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
Developers have land that has permission in principle but overall permission is still denied because its pending something else first, so it can't be built yet. Or it has permission but its being built in phases, so construction is underway in one part and the next phases are scheduled.
Land is expensive. Few businesses can justify holding onto it without doing anything with it for long.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
Lovely argument but I don't believe Denmark has a First past the post electoral system - so how elections work there doesn't help parties in the UK
The proposition is earlier in the article. The Denmark comparison is to make the point that the outcome is workable in office.
But it isn't if elections work in a different way.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
What the hell are you on about? Increasing income multiples on offer by mortgage providers makes housing more affordable, not less.
Affordable for a moment though? The longer the loan the more the interest compounds and the greater the effect on the buyer.
At what point does ratcheting up multiples become unsustainable? What percentage of young peoples lives does it become politically unacceptable to ask them to borrow beyond. Will we be borrowing till we take what limited pension we have and are then reliant on our children to pay of the damn thing?
Every time a 'help to buy scheme' drops the prices go up. Each scheme IMO helps the few able to buy at the time and distorts the market for anyone coming after.
OK, I agree with that. It's assumed that multiples aren't set in a vacuum though - if they go up then it means that affordability has improved to the point where that's realistic - so either interest rate expectations have dropped even further, or something else has happened to make it easier to pay back (runaway wage inflation...?)
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
I am a bit surprised Bozo didn't send a carrier squadron.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
I am a bit surprised Bozo didn't send a carrier squadron.
But he didn't. The French are/were attempting to blockade the port, he couldn't do nothing.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
My sword has a 30.5" Toledo blade and a pattern solid hilt. I reckon I could fuck somebody up with it. White fish skin grip for extra dash.
Isn't fencing a little, sort of, effete for you? You know which end to hold, right?
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Next -"de Beers help keep the price of diamonds down..."
Since de Beers mine diamonds, they do. If de Beers didn't exist, with nothing replacing it, then diamonds would go up in cost. Its like supply and demand is an alien concept to you.
The issue isn't the supply, its the lack of other suppliers too. The lack of supply on housing is by design of those who vote to constrain land availability - not builders who build on the scraps of land made available to them. It would be easy enough to release ever more land to even more builders - but the Councils by and large don't want to do that. So easier to blame the builders than blame the Councils or voters.
You can't apply first year undergrad economics to diamonds like that. Diamonds have no intrinsic value and don't store value in the way that gold does. The demand for them is based largely on cultural perceptions, and much of that has been ruthlessly engineered by De Beers to improve their profitability.
Oh that is absolutely true, which makes it a poor comparator against houses the demand for which hasn't been created by builders.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
Working their way down the Yes Minister checklist?
1. Do nothing (implicitly agree with action) 2. Issue a statement (look foolish) 3. Lodge protest (Be ignored) 4. Cut off aid (Do we give them any? Unlikely) 5. Break off diplomatic relations (Cannot work with them on many issues) 6. Declare war (Overeaction)
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
Actually, HMS Tamar looks quite impressive. No idea if she is well armed or anything, but she looks good
That's interesting. Though it is to my eyes a disruptive scheme to break up othe outline against the Western Approaches/North Sea seascapes, much as the Swedes and Finns use greens in their archipelagoes.
True dazzle schemes were totally in your face, to confuse visual aiming off for torpedoes.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
My sword has a 30.5" Toledo blade and a pattern solid hilt. I reckon I could fuck somebody up with it. White fish skin grip for extra dash.
Isn't fencing a little, sort of, effete for you? You know which end to hold, right?
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Next -"de Beers help keep the price of diamonds down..."
Since de Beers mine diamonds, they do. If de Beers didn't exist, with nothing replacing it, then diamonds would go up in cost. Its like supply and demand is an alien concept to you.
The issue isn't the supply, its the lack of other suppliers too. The lack of supply on housing is by design of those who vote to constrain land availability - not builders who build on the scraps of land made available to them. It would be easy enough to release ever more land to even more builders - but the Councils by and large don't want to do that. So easier to blame the builders than blame the Councils or voters.
You can't apply first year undergrad economics to diamonds like that. Diamonds have no intrinsic value and don't store value in the way that gold does. The demand for them is based largely on cultural perceptions, and much of that has been ruthlessly engineered by De Beers to improve their profitability.
As someone who didn't even do first year economics, why can gold store value but diamonds cannot?
One bar of gold is interchangeable with any other bar of gold, while diamonds vary considerably in terms of cut, clarity, colour and weight.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
I am a bit surprised Bozo didn't send a carrier squadron.
But he didn't. The French are/were attempting to blockade the port, he couldn't do nothing.
Well indeed, and on that I have to agree. It may help the French fishermen to be restrained if they think they might get boarded by a party of Royal Marines. Sounds as though it is all a bit of a big cock up by the Jersey authorities. Knowing people that live there, that is most likely. Their politicians are not of the highest order.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
Actually, HMS Tamar looks quite impressive. No idea if she is well armed or anything, but she looks good
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
What the hell are you on about? Increasing income multiples on offer by mortgage providers makes housing more affordable, not less.
Affordable for a moment though? The longer the loan the more the interest compounds and the greater the effect on the buyer.
At what point does ratcheting up multiples become unsustainable? What percentage of young peoples lives does it become politically unacceptable to ask them to borrow beyond. Will we be borrowing till we take what limited pension we have and are then reliant on our children to pay of the damn thing?
Every time a 'help to buy scheme' drops the prices go up. Each scheme IMO helps the few able to buy at the time and distorts the market for anyone coming after.
OK, I agree with that. It's assumed that multiples aren't set in a vacuum though - if they go up then it means that affordability has improved to the point where that's realistic - so either interest rate expectations have dropped even further, or something else has happened to make it easier to pay back (runaway wage inflation...?)
Yeah, seems like were reliant on low interest rates for the foreseeable. I think a lot of long term homeowners are not imagining buying into todays market as a youngling. They're not seeing the extent that wage stagnation, job precarity and the perception that you're buying into a government supported pension scheme for the over 50's has affected the young.
Yes we will buy in but we're doing it on the understanding that there is no alternative.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
I'm not sure your ideal home builder exists. Is it really in the interest of a company to saturate the market with their product?
My contribution to the building debate, only slightly off topic.
The mega house-building companies, most of them, are among the worst crooks and charlatans in the country. Huge profits, shoddy quality of builds, dodgy if not illegal employment practices, raking in fat profits from government-funded (i.e. taxpayer-funded) schemes, no consideration whatsoever for the public good. They represent the very worst of capitalism.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
My sword has a 30.5" Toledo blade and a pattern solid hilt. I reckon I could fuck somebody up with it. White fish skin grip for extra dash.
Isn't fencing a little, sort of, effete for you? You know which end to hold, right?
Nothing effete about sabre fencing!
It's all relative; this is Dura Ace we're talking about. He gives the sense of being more comfortable with a broken bottle, aesthetically speaking.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
I am a bit surprised Bozo didn't send a carrier squadron.
Can't. Tories scrapped the old carriers before the new ones are ready, and the planes.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
I am a bit surprised Bozo didn't send a carrier squadron.
But he didn't. The French are/were attempting to blockade the port, he couldn't do nothing.
Well indeed, and on that I have to agree. It may help the French fishermen to be restrained if they think they might get boarded by a party of Royal Marines. Sounds as though it is all a bit of a big cock up by the Jersey authorities. Knowing people that live there, that is most likely. Their politicians are not of the highest order.
I was going to say that was nonsense as they have a glorious voting system, but I see it was actually Guernsey which has the single constituency, with each voter having up to 38 votes to case for 119 candidates last time. Marvellous.
The new Guernsey Party stood 8 candidates and elected 6 of them, with the Guernsey Party of Independents electing 10 of 21 candidates. No one elected out of 11 candidates for the Alliance Party Guernsey though.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
What the hell are you on about? Increasing income multiples on offer by mortgage providers makes housing more affordable, not less.
Not when the issue is that banks have affordability criteria based on spending that stop you qualifying for a £600 a month mortgage when the bank statements clearly show zero problems paying £1000 a month in rent.
Arguable, sure, but all else being equal multiples going up is good for buyers, not bad.
Nope - increased multiples with nothing else being changed merely makes houses more expensive (previously you could borrow £100,000 now you can borrow £120,000 but as everyone else can now borrow that £120,000 you are just paying more than before).
Now in theory, increased prices should mean increased supply but that isn't the case because the supply of housing is restricted by other factors.
The magic spot is rising affordability and rising house prices. That sounds absurd, but hear me out.
Maggie managed that through RTB. Blair managed it by the collapse in inflation allowing interest rates to plummet. Rishi has kind of made it work temporarily by cancelling stamp duty.
The thing is, they're all one-offs, and parties that can't continue indefinitely. There has to be something wrong, because lots of people have been able to put down a 10 percent deposit, borrow the rest and make huge capital gains for not doing very much. In any other context, we would be asking ourselves "why didn't you think this was a scam?"
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
Yes there’s a massive lank banking issue in this country. The problem is that each individual decision to hold on to land can be entirely rational for its owner, so the answer has to be government intervention to change the incentives. Some sort of tax probably.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
My sword has a 30.5" Toledo blade and a pattern solid hilt. I reckon I could fuck somebody up with it. White fish skin grip for extra dash.
Isn't fencing a little, sort of, effete for you? You know which end to hold, right?
Nothing effete about sabre fencing!
It's all relative; this is Dura Ace we're talking about. He gives the sense of being more comfortable with a broken bottle, aesthetically speaking.
@Dura_Ace is a busted flush ever since the Top Gear Sabine Schmitz tribute included footage of her fighter pilot passenger introducing his lunch to his shoes.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
The housebuilders don't own landbanks ? Really ?
.
Pretty much all of the green belt fields around my village are owned by housebuilders, even though they’re currently leased to farmers.
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
Yes , so long as it is outside the precinct
There is a statuary distance of, from memory, 50 yards, unless it's on private property. You need to talk to the Presiding Officer or the RO or their Deputy.
I dont think there's statutory limit. 100 m is sometimes mentioned , but this is just RO guidance to local political parties.
From years of doing this I've had it drilled into me that you don't take party materials anywhere near a polling station. I always removed a rosette even though I knew that was allowed.
Alex Salmond cames across as an arrogant bastard. I am parking here and who are you to ask me if it's ok. I was polite!
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
It's an elaborate dance. It's worth bearing in mind the Royal Navy boats are doing absolutely nothing, they're just watching.
It's a military version of WWE, at a very safe distance.
Just back from having mine here in 75 degrees of heat SE Spain - very efficient all done by text and they said next one in 3 months!
That is impressive - I didn't realise you could get a vaccine by text.
Few people know that both Microsoft and Apple are part of the conspiracy. Microsoft have produced the virus, with embedded tracking software, which has been sent via text to your smartphone. When you respond to the vaccination text, the phone pricks your finger, and the virus also downloads via your optic nerve for added efficacy.
I thought it was interesting that the banners by footie fans were more pithy and effective than the sopping wet McTory campaign who probably paid some agency a large sum.
Effective in what sense? No one likes us, we don't care, and I know we smashed up the city center a few weeks ago, but could I interest you in voting for/against party X?
The 'Bears' are waging a fairly relentless online campaign against any Rangers fans expressing favourability towards Indy or the SNP. I don't think they've quite cracked this persuasion lark.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Next -"de Beers help keep the price of diamonds down..."
Since de Beers mine diamonds, they do. If de Beers didn't exist, with nothing replacing it, then diamonds would go up in cost. Its like supply and demand is an alien concept to you.
The issue isn't the supply, its the lack of other suppliers too. The lack of supply on housing is by design of those who vote to constrain land availability - not builders who build on the scraps of land made available to them. It would be easy enough to release ever more land to even more builders - but the Councils by and large don't want to do that. So easier to blame the builders than blame the Councils or voters.
The whole point of De Beers is that it's a virtual monopoly on diamonds so they can keep the prices artificially high.
Some concrete numbers from Waverley (Surrey, mixed Con/LD/Residents councillors, Lab making a more serious effort than before but not expecting a gain). 26.6% of the electorate have ordered PVs, and 59.7% of those have actually voted (more will arrive today, but should be close to the final figure), so 16% of all voters have voted before today. Voting today is described as "steady with occasional queues". Guess at final figure: 35-40%? No party is making a serious telling effort, though a few candidates are hanging around smiling hopefully at voters.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
Which is a load of meaningless claptrap. That includes houses where developers have received permission for an entire project but it will take years to build it, even though construction has already begun. It includes houses where permission has been granted in principle, but construction can't occur yet pending other steps that haven't happened.
There is always going to be a pipeline of houses due to be built. Its not like you can grant permission then click your fingers and as if by magic every single house in an entire development is 100% built and ready the day after permission was granted. What a joke! 🙄
There will always be houses in the pipeline, either next to be built, or being built, or stalled for other reasons. But widening the pipeline would allow more houses to be built each year. Saying "build those with permission first" is as much an excuse as those who want everything to be brownfield.
Jeremy Corbyn on twitter. ________________________________________ Proud to vote Labour today for a kinder, fairer, more sustainable world. _______________________________________
Fuck me, what a fucking classy bloke. Worth more than the rest of them put together.
I would sit and laugh at Kieth I would be bitter and loving his failure, I would be working my ass off to get my own back.
I just don't understand how the hell he does it but I admire the hell out of it.
Also SUPER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not voting Labour that was just Corbyn's words.
Are there politicians who are arguing for a crueller, less fair and unsustainable world?
The admiration of Corbyn borders on the religious.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
Yes there’s a massive lank banking issue in this country. The problem is that each individual decision to hold on to land can be entirely rational for its owner, so the answer has to be government intervention to change the incentives. Some sort of tax probably.
Isn't that the nub of it. It is rational for anyone with a stake in the market for houses to increase in value. The politics reflects that and the demographics mean nothing will change for the next twenty years.
Maybe its time for the young who will not inherit to think about leaving.
My contribution to the building debate, only slightly off topic.
The mega house-building companies, most of them, are among the worst crooks and charlatans in the country. Huge profits, shoddy quality of builds, dodgy if not illegal employment practices, raking in fat profits from government-funded (i.e. taxpayer-funded) schemes, no consideration whatsoever for the public good. They represent the very worst of capitalism.
I would agree with the poor build quality, the electrics in new houses are often fitted by labourers and are horrendous quality
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
Yes , so long as it is outside the precinct
There is a statuary distance of, from memory, 50 yards, unless it's on private property. You need to talk to the Presiding Officer or the RO or their Deputy.
I dont think there's statutory limit. 100 m is sometimes mentioned , but this is just RO guidance to local political parties.
From years of doing this I've had it drilled into me that you don't take party materials anywhere near a polling station. I always removed a rosette even though I knew that was allowed.
Alex Salmond cames across as an arrogant bastard. I am parking here and who are you to ask me if it's ok. I was polite!
Within the precinct - being the grounds - of the polling station, rules are very strict. You shouldn’t really display the party or candidate name, and I have come across some areas where ROs still insist and therefore a blank coloured rosette was all you were allowed. The electoral commission guidance nowadays is a little more relaxed and simply requires that any such material be unobtrusive.
Beyond the polling station there is no jurisdiction to enforce any such rules, which is why the guidelines sometimes issued to the parties are just that - guidance.
Some concrete numbers from Waverley (Surrey, mixed Con/LD/Residents councillors, Lab making a more serious effort than before but not expecting a gain). 26.6% of the electorate have ordered PVs, and 59.7% of those have actually voted (more will arrive today, but should be close to the final figure), so 16% of all voters have voted before today. Voting today is described as "steady with occasional queues". Guess at final figure: 35-40%? No party is making a serious telling effort, though a few candidates are hanging around smiling hopefully at voters.
That’s fascinating. Is that the normal run rate for returned postal votes? I’d always assumed that those who bothered to ask for one would bother to return it.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
"Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications" is another one of those ridiculous meaningless statements to distract. People don't put in applications they know will be refused.
By only allowing a small amount of land to be built on, the applications go in for that land - but all the other land that could have been built on if permission weren't denied never gets applications in the first place!
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
Yes there’s a massive lank banking issue in this country. The problem is that each individual decision to hold on to land can be entirely rational for its owner, so the answer has to be government intervention to change the incentives. Some sort of tax probably.
Isn't that the nub of it. It is rational for anyone with a stake in the market for houses to increase in value. The politics reflects that and the demographics mean nothing will change for the next twenty years.
Maybe its time for the young who will not inherit to think about leaving.
The real irony on an individual level is that once your equity is over, say, 40% then some form of house price crash is probably in your interest. You’re either not planning to move (in which case you don’t care) or you want to upscale (in which case it’s good news).
I didn’t I’m afraid. Just back from the polling station. I went 1. Berry and 2. Khan. It actually took me a while to locate Khan among the c.20 candidates listed.
The problem is, the problem is insoluble. People need to believe both that the Tories can't solve it (true) and that Labour can (false). It's only a house price crash that would scupper the Tories.
What is needed is inflation (and especially wage inflation) so that house prices reduce in real but not monetary terms.
The question is how do you get there in a deflationary world.
One aspect worth considering - would a massive social house-building programme that takes up most of the available land bank (compulsorily purchased?) and consequent rising land value drive an increase in the value of new private, and consequently existing owned housing stock despite their reducing share of the total market?
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
Yes there’s a massive lank banking issue in this country. The problem is that each individual decision to hold on to land can be entirely rational for its owner, so the answer has to be government intervention to change the incentives. Some sort of tax probably.
If there were really a land bank issue, then the government could prevent it by giving permission to other land not in the bank. Keep giving permission out to everyone who asks on any other land willing to be sold. The banked land then would be worthless. So what's the problem?
@Dura_Ace is a busted flush ever since the Top Gear Sabine Schmitz tribute included footage of her fighter pilot passenger introducing his lunch to his shoes.
I have only ever been close to spewing in an aircraft once; in the back seat of a Crab Air Tornado that was recreating Operation Chastise on the Mohne dam in flagrant violation of standing orders.
The only time I've ever thrown up in a car was the first time I saw the interior of a Jeep Grand Cherokee.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
Yes there’s a massive lank banking issue in this country. The problem is that each individual decision to hold on to land can be entirely rational for its owner, so the answer has to be government intervention to change the incentives. Some sort of tax probably.
Isn't that the nub of it. It is rational for anyone with a stake in the market for houses to increase in value. The politics reflects that and the demographics mean nothing will change for the next twenty years.
Maybe its time for the young who will not inherit to think about leaving.
The good news for today’s young is that they will live to see the pendulum swing away from protecting the wealth of pensioners, and this wealth will thereafter be taxed to pay for policies more in the interests of younger working age people.
The bad news is that today’s young will then be well on the way to retirement.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
Yes there’s a massive lank banking issue in this country. The problem is that each individual decision to hold on to land can be entirely rational for its owner, so the answer has to be government intervention to change the incentives. Some sort of tax probably.
Isn't that the nub of it. It is rational for anyone with a stake in the market for houses to increase in value. The politics reflects that and the demographics mean nothing will change for the next twenty years.
Maybe its time for the young who will not inherit to think about leaving.
The good news for today’s young is that they will live to see the pendulum swing away from protecting the wealth of pensioners, and this wealth will thereafter be taxed to pay for policies more in the interests of younger working age people.
The bad news is that today’s young will then be well on the way to retirement.
Just back from voting (Parish, Town and PCC). Three people voting ahead of me, but can't say if that's busy or not as this is the first time I've voted at lunchtime (normally on way to or back from work). I find it odd that they don't have a separate box for the different elections...
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
I don't think sending in a destroyer would have been a particularly proportionate response.
I am a bit surprised Bozo didn't send a carrier squadron.
But he didn't. The French are/were attempting to blockade the port, he couldn't do nothing.
Well indeed, and on that I have to agree. It may help the French fishermen to be restrained if they think they might get boarded by a party of Royal Marines. Sounds as though it is all a bit of a big cock up by the Jersey authorities. Knowing people that live there, that is most likely. Their politicians are not of the highest order.
If you drill down, the Jersey fisherman have a pretty serious point
"French fishing boats spotted off the coast of a British Channel Island are continuing to 'decimate' the seabed with unsustainable 'industrial fishing methods', officials say.
"Don Thompson, president of the Jersey Fishermen's Association, made the comments after multiple vessels appeared a few miles off the coast.
"He said that some of the boats had up to 1,000 horsepower, were around 20 metres long and were taking 'tonnes' of scallops off the sea bed."
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
"Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications" is another one of those ridiculous meaningless statements to distract. People don't put in applications they know will be refused.
By only allowing a small amount of land to be built on, the applications go in for that land - but all the other land that could have been built on if permission weren't denied never gets applications in the first place!
I think you're ignoring
'house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build'
Seems like they're doing well enough at the planning stage but suffering when it come to throwing down the concrete.
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
Yes , so long as it is outside the precinct
There is a statuary distance of, from memory, 50 yards, unless it's on private property. You need to talk to the Presiding Officer or the RO or their Deputy.
I dont think there's statutory limit. 100 m is sometimes mentioned , but this is just RO guidance to local political parties.
From years of doing this I've had it drilled into me that you don't take party materials anywhere near a polling station. I always removed a rosette even though I knew that was allowed.
Alex Salmond cames across as an arrogant bastard. I am parking here and who are you to ask me if it's ok. I was polite!
Come to think of it, Salmond saying "the law doesn't apply to candidates" shows that he knows fully well that it does.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
Yes there’s a massive lank banking issue in this country. The problem is that each individual decision to hold on to land can be entirely rational for its owner, so the answer has to be government intervention to change the incentives. Some sort of tax probably.
Isn't that the nub of it. It is rational for anyone with a stake in the market for houses to increase in value. The politics reflects that and the demographics mean nothing will change for the next twenty years.
Maybe its time for the young who will not inherit to think about leaving.
The good news for today’s young is that they will live to see the pendulum swing away from protecting the wealth of pensioners, and this wealth will thereafter be taxed to pay for policies more in the interests of younger working age people.
The bad news is that today’s young will then be well on the way to retirement.
Do the demographics support this, won't the elders still have a plurality in all of Middle England's constituencies?
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
Yes , so long as it is outside the precinct
There is a statuary distance of, from memory, 50 yards, unless it's on private property. You need to talk to the Presiding Officer or the RO or their Deputy.
I dont think there's statutory limit. 100 m is sometimes mentioned , but this is just RO guidance to local political parties.
From years of doing this I've had it drilled into me that you don't take party materials anywhere near a polling station. I always removed a rosette even though I knew that was allowed.
Alex Salmond cames across as an arrogant bastard. I am parking here and who are you to ask me if it's ok. I was polite!
Within the precinct - being the grounds - of the polling station, rules are very strict. You shouldn’t really display the party or candidate name, and I have come across some areas where ROs still insist and therefore a blank coloured rosette was all you were allowed. The electoral commission guidance nowadays is a little more relaxed and simply requires that any such material be unobtrusive.
Beyond the polling station there is no jurisdiction to enforce any such rules, which is why the guidelines sometimes issued to the parties are just that - guidance.
My back garden adjoins the (only) entrance to the polling station.
I am perpetually tempted to either stick up a mahoosive poster, or play "Boris Johnson is a ----ing ----" on repeat, but have been well behaved so far today. I do sometimes pass a cuppa over for the tellers though. Even the Tory ones.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
"Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications" is another one of those ridiculous meaningless statements to distract. People don't put in applications they know will be refused.
By only allowing a small amount of land to be built on, the applications go in for that land - but all the other land that could have been built on if permission weren't denied never gets applications in the first place!
I think you're ignoring
'house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build'
Seems like they're doing well enough at the planning stage but suffering when it come to throwing down the concrete.
No I'm not because its completely meaningless gibberish. It takes time to get things built, you can't just snap your fingers and have it done overnight. There will always be a pipeline of houses due to be built. That includes houses where developers have received permission for an entire project but it will take years to build all of them, in phases, even though construction has already begun. It also includes houses where permission has been granted in principle, but construction can't occur yet pending other steps that haven't happened.
Its not like you can grant permission then click your fingers and as if by magic every single house in an entire development is 100% built and ready the day after permission was granted.
There will always be houses in the pipeline, either next to be built, or being built, or stalled for other reasons. But widening the pipeline would allow more houses to be built each year. Saying "build those with permission first" is as much an excuse as those who want everything to be brownfield.
Its never going to be possible to have 0 homes with permission that are still to be built, unless you invent a way to magically build every house in a plan on the very day permission is granted. Is that your solution?
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
Yes , so long as it is outside the precinct
There is a statuary distance of, from memory, 50 yards, unless it's on private property. You need to talk to the Presiding Officer or the RO or their Deputy.
I dont think there's statutory limit. 100 m is sometimes mentioned , but this is just RO guidance to local political parties.
From years of doing this I've had it drilled into me that you don't take party materials anywhere near a polling station. I always removed a rosette even though I knew that was allowed.
Alex Salmond cames across as an arrogant bastard. I am parking here and who are you to ask me if it's ok. I was polite!
Within the precinct - being the grounds - of the polling station, rules are very strict. You shouldn’t really display the party or candidate name, and I have come across some areas where ROs still insist and therefore a blank coloured rosette was all you were allowed. The electoral commission guidance nowadays is a little more relaxed and simply requires that any such material be unobtrusive.
Beyond the polling station there is no jurisdiction to enforce any such rules, which is why the guidelines sometimes issued to the parties are just that - guidance.
There is an electoral commission rule prohibiting party logos and materials in the immediate vicinity of the polling centre which I posted earlier. At best they can be asked to move on - and he did. Having said that the law (these rules) don't apply to candidates.
BTW we're talking a narrow pavement between his car and the entrance door. Coming from one side you'd need to siddle past him to gain entry.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
It's an elaborate dance. It's worth bearing in mind the Royal Navy boats are doing absolutely nothing, they're just watching.
It's a military version of WWE, at a very safe distance.
If there is any chance at all of things turning hot then Biden would pick up the phone and then it would be over. He could degrade the British Trident boats and French carrier by just suspending USN support for both programs.
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
Yes , so long as it is outside the precinct
There is a statuary distance of, from memory, 50 yards, unless it's on private property. You need to talk to the Presiding Officer or the RO or their Deputy.
I dont think there's statutory limit. 100 m is sometimes mentioned , but this is just RO guidance to local political parties.
From years of doing this I've had it drilled into me that you don't take party materials anywhere near a polling station. I always removed a rosette even though I knew that was allowed.
Alex Salmond cames across as an arrogant bastard. I am parking here and who are you to ask me if it's ok. I was polite!
Within the precinct - being the grounds - of the polling station, rules are very strict. You shouldn’t really display the party or candidate name, and I have come across some areas where ROs still insist and therefore a blank coloured rosette was all you were allowed. The electoral commission guidance nowadays is a little more relaxed and simply requires that any such material be unobtrusive.
Beyond the polling station there is no jurisdiction to enforce any such rules, which is why the guidelines sometimes issued to the parties are just that - guidance.
There is an electoral commission rule prohibiting party logos and materials in the immediate vicinity of the polling centre which I posted earlier. At best they can be asked to move on - and he did. Having said that the law (these rules) don't apply to candidates.
BTW we're talking a narrow pavement between his car and the entrance door. Coming from one side you'd need to siddle past him to gain entry.
The most innovative bending of the rules came in the Greenwich by-election. Rosie Barnes' agent had so many volunteer helpers he arranged for a number to walk up and down outside the polling stations with A-frame posters.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
It's an elaborate dance. It's worth bearing in mind the Royal Navy boats are doing absolutely nothing, they're just watching.
It's a military version of WWE, at a very safe distance.
I suppose its like an unscheduled training exercise. Just a bit of wargaming, but nothing actually going to happen.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
Assuming we are entirely supply constrained the house builders will benefit no? They can set the prices at the very limit to which the market is able to support. See the 3-4 bedroom 'executive clones' popping up all over Yorkshire.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
No of course I don't accept that, don't be silly.
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
From the LGA: House builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes, an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the recession"
"Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications" is another one of those ridiculous meaningless statements to distract. People don't put in applications they know will be refused.
By only allowing a small amount of land to be built on, the applications go in for that land - but all the other land that could have been built on if permission weren't denied never gets applications in the first place!
I think you're ignoring
'house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they are still to build'
Seems like they're doing well enough at the planning stage but suffering when it come to throwing down the concrete.
What is the average time period to go from start to planning permission fully granted? What is the maximum time?
I believe that 123,151 new homes were registered in 2020 and 160,319 in 2019.
Taking the lower figure, we have 3.43 years worth of planning permission.
If we can get an idea of how long permission takes to be granted we can then judge the scale of the pipeline "stock".
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
It's an elaborate dance. It's worth bearing in mind the Royal Navy boats are doing absolutely nothing, they're just watching.
It's a military version of WWE, at a very safe distance.
I suppose its like an unscheduled training exercise. Just a bit of wargaming, but nothing actually going to happen.
How about a nice game of chess?
That's what the computer said in a film whose name escapes me after it had tested all possible nuclear outcomes and stood down the missiles after a child taught it by starting of with noughts and crosses...
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
It's an elaborate dance. It's worth bearing in mind the Royal Navy boats are doing absolutely nothing, they're just watching.
It's a military version of WWE, at a very safe distance.
I suppose its like an unscheduled training exercise. Just a bit of wargaming, but nothing actually going to happen.
How about a nice game of chess?
That's what the computer said in a film whose name escapes me after it had tested all possible nuclear outcomes and stood down the missiles after a child taught it by starting of with noughts and crosses...
Comments
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/april/27/20210427-dazzle-paint
But the truth is you never actually own _any_ of the building. You merely lease it from the freeholder for a set amount of time - effectively you are a long term tenant with the ability to sell your lease on to someone else.
The freeholder owns the building. This is where it gets complicated. The original developer of the building often sells off the freehold to an investor, who may not be based in the Uk and ownership can be obscured through a series of shell companies. Making it difficult if not outright impossible to force the freeholder to pay the costs of rectifying the defects. Hence the reason why the government is so keen to pass costs on to leaseholders.
Remember, leaseholders own nothing other than a scrap of paper that entitles them to rent a property for a set number of years.
Even without the cladding scandal, you are beholden to the freeholder for how much repairs, service charges etc cost - mismanagement and corruption are rife and leaseholders have little option but to accept all costs the freeholder chooses to pass on to them.
The advice is obviously to never buy leasehold, however for people who can only own a flat (or who live in London, where freeholds are rare and prohibitively expensive), there isn't much choice if you wan to "own" property rather than rent on an assured shorthold tenancy.
We've discussed the cladding scandal at length in this thread, but it's worth pointing out that leasehold as a system exists in England only and the rest of the world thinks it's bonkers.
A good thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1286700538994683909
...
https://www.londonfirst.co.uk/news-publications/blog/are-developers-land-banking-instead-of-house-building
Developers have land that has permission in principle but overall permission is still denied because its pending something else first, so it can't be built yet.
Or it has permission but its being built in phases, so construction is underway in one part and the next phases are scheduled.
Land is expensive. Few businesses can justify holding onto it without doing anything with it for long.
Do you not accept that the largest home builders have the UK over a barrel. Yes they will build and drip feed homes into an area. But if you earn anything near an average income your gonna have to tale the most leverage you can afford and whatever inducement the government is offering at the time.
1. Do nothing (implicitly agree with action)
2. Issue a statement (look foolish)
3. Lodge protest (Be ignored)
4. Cut off aid (Do we give them any? Unlikely)
5. Break off diplomatic relations (Cannot work with them on many issues)
6. Declare war (Overeaction)
True dazzle schemes were totally in your face, to confuse visual aiming off for torpedoes.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-british-wanted-camouflage-their-warships-they-made-them-dazzle-180958657/
(which also has a pushempullyou design to make it even harder to decide which end was which)
Land is drip fed by the Councils, not the builders. If the Councils released huge swathes of land to be built on then if the large home builders didn't build on it then new companies could easily be created that would do so. But they can't, because the land hasn't got permission.
RussianFrench radar breaks down.Yes we will buy in but we're doing it on the understanding that there is no alternative.
The LGA is working on an online map showing where these are. The full report is balanced and examines a variety of relevant issues:
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/5.36 Speeding up delivery_v03.1.pdf
The mega house-building companies, most of them, are among the worst crooks and charlatans in the country. Huge profits, shoddy quality of builds, dodgy if not illegal employment practices, raking in fat profits from government-funded (i.e. taxpayer-funded) schemes, no consideration whatsoever for the public good. They represent the very worst of capitalism.
So money well spent and well done HMG.
The new Guernsey Party stood 8 candidates and elected 6 of them, with the Guernsey Party of Independents electing 10 of 21 candidates. No one elected out of 11 candidates for the Alliance Party Guernsey though.
Now in theory, increased prices should mean increased supply but that isn't the case because the supply of housing is restricted by other factors.
That sounds absurd, but hear me out.
Maggie managed that through RTB.
Blair managed it by the collapse in inflation allowing interest rates to plummet.
Rishi has kind of made it work temporarily by cancelling stamp duty.
The thing is, they're all one-offs, and parties that can't continue indefinitely.
There has to be something wrong, because lots of people have been able to put down a 10 percent deposit, borrow the rest and make huge capital gains for not doing very much. In any other context, we would be asking ourselves "why didn't you think this was a scam?"
"Planning is not a barrier to building. Councils are approving nine in 10 planning applications
and in 2017 they worked with developers to grant planning permission to over 350,000 homes,
an 11-year high. In fact house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they
are still to build. This is a positive base reflecting improving economic conditions following the
recession"
Alex Salmond cames across as an arrogant bastard. I am parking here and who are you to ask me if it's ok. I was polite!
It's a military version of WWE, at a very safe distance.
No one likes us, we don't care, and I know we smashed up the city center a few weeks ago, but could I interest you in voting for/against party X?
The 'Bears' are waging a fairly relentless online campaign against any Rangers fans expressing favourability towards Indy or the SNP. I don't think they've quite cracked this persuasion lark.
Another strong performance from Cecil there.
#Jersey
https://twitter.com/finolamilesITV/status/1390045801506873346?s=20
There is always going to be a pipeline of houses due to be built. Its not like you can grant permission then click your fingers and as if by magic every single house in an entire development is 100% built and ready the day after permission was granted. What a joke! 🙄
There will always be houses in the pipeline, either next to be built, or being built, or stalled for other reasons. But widening the pipeline would allow more houses to be built each year. Saying "build those with permission first" is as much an excuse as those who want everything to be brownfield.
The admiration of Corbyn borders on the religious.
Maybe its time for the young who will not inherit to think about leaving.
Beyond the polling station there is no jurisdiction to enforce any such rules, which is why the guidelines sometimes issued to the parties are just that - guidance.
By only allowing a small amount of land to be built on, the applications go in for that land - but all the other land that could have been built on if permission weren't denied never gets applications in the first place!
The only time I've ever thrown up in a car was the first time I saw the interior of a Jeep Grand Cherokee.
The bad news is that today’s young will then be well on the way to retirement.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9429791/Jersey-fishermen-claim-French-boats-decimating-seabed-coast-Channel-Island.html
"French fishing boats spotted off the coast of a British Channel Island are continuing to 'decimate' the seabed with unsustainable 'industrial fishing methods', officials say.
"Don Thompson, president of the Jersey Fishermen's Association, made the comments after multiple vessels appeared a few miles off the coast.
"He said that some of the boats had up to 1,000 horsepower, were around 20 metres long and were taking 'tonnes' of scallops off the sea bed."
'house builders currently have 423,000 homes with permission that they
are still to build'
Seems like they're doing well enough at the planning stage but suffering when it come to throwing down the concrete.
Seems like its pensioners all the way down!
The position of the dryer in the pub's loo was completely impractical.
I am perpetually tempted to either stick up a mahoosive poster, or play "Boris Johnson is a ----ing ----" on repeat, but have been well behaved so far today. I do sometimes pass a cuppa over for the tellers though. Even the Tory ones.
Its not like you can grant permission then click your fingers and as if by magic every single house in an entire development is 100% built and ready the day after permission was granted.
There will always be houses in the pipeline, either next to be built, or being built, or stalled for other reasons. But widening the pipeline would allow more houses to be built each year. Saying "build those with permission first" is as much an excuse as those who want everything to be brownfield.
Its never going to be possible to have 0 homes with permission that are still to be built, unless you invent a way to magically build every house in a plan on the very day permission is granted. Is that your solution?
BTW we're talking a narrow pavement between his car and the entrance door. Coming from one side you'd need to siddle past him to gain entry.
"Yes."
How about a nice game of chess?
I believe that 123,151 new homes were registered in 2020 and 160,319 in 2019.
Taking the lower figure, we have 3.43 years worth of planning permission.
If we can get an idea of how long permission takes to be granted we can then judge the scale of the pipeline "stock".
'Spoilt for choice, mate.'
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1390278890082406400
"The French vessels have left the area."