You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
A collapse in house prices is needed dahn sarf to make any of them affordable. Even "affordable" houses are bonkers compared to salaries.
A slow deflation of house prices down south is exactly what we need - not a collapse.
Whether this is a cash plateau whilst inflation degrades it, or something a little sharper, depends on how it is done.
We need higher inflation, that would make it easier to be contained without negative equity.
Without inflation there's no chance to solve this.
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Why wouldn't everyone set up a company to hold the property? Particularly the rich?
Because the company will still need to pay the annual property tax - the ownership method shouldn't change the tax you pay on an asset.
Personally I believe assets of the same class should be taxed in the exact same way, so all residential property should be subject to Council tax and there should be no interest relief on any mortgages on residential property regardless of the ownership type.
I'd simplify it. Ensure Council Tax is paid by the owner not the occupier - with a 100% surcharge for any homes that are not the owner's primary residence. Which would include a 100% surcharge for all homes owned by corporations etc.
What do you do then when all the occupier's are then out on the street looking for somewhere to live.
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Why wouldn't everyone set up a company to hold the property? Particularly the rich?
Because the company will still need to pay the annual property tax - the ownership method shouldn't change the tax you pay on an asset.
Personally I believe assets of the same class should be taxed in the exact same way, so all residential property should be subject to Council tax and there should be no interest relief on any mortgages on residential property regardless of the ownership type.
I'd simplify it. Ensure Council Tax is paid by the owner not the occupier - with a 100% surcharge for any homes that are not the owner's primary residence. Which would include a 100% surcharge for all homes owned by corporations etc.
What do you do then when all the occupier's are then out on the street looking for somewhere to live.
If all the occupiers are on the street then who is in all of the homes they were formerly occupying?
UK is about to extend "grace periods" for NI Protocol that has caused so much difficulty since #Brexit -- EU side will not object -- so that talks on UK Command Paper can continue
Tube coverage for 4G/5G by the end of 2024, finally
You are such a pleb.
Last few times I’ve been in London and used Uber Luxury.
Really nice cars from LWB Merc series 6 to a Rolls Royce, all the vehicles had their own Wi-fi for us to use.
I even get the bus sometimes. I love London, we just rub along together.
Walk. Fresh air and exercise.
I haven't got a taxi in years, Getting a taxi generally means you've failed to plan your journey properly. There are very few journeys which can be done more efficiently by taxi than by public transport. Granted, I live in Greater Manchester where public transport is plentiful. The picture may be different in, say, the Peak District, after dark.
Your last bit is the only sensible bit, anyone not living in a city has great issues using public transport to get there the same day and without multiple journeys.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
The valid argument I have already provided, the average London property price, even paid by first time buyers, is unaffordable to those on the average London wage.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
Is there an emoji for banging your head against a brick wall anyone?
a) Again I probably agree with you re affordability so I am not going to provide an example proving you wrong am I?
b) You have not proved Philip wrong because your maths is wrong.
You aren't because you can't so my point stands
"i know you are, you said you are, but what am I?"
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
I note that those left-of-centre commentators who were so critical of Johnson and the London govt and laudatory of the administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff for their respective Covid responses have gone quiet of late.
Much as I am loathed to defend the divisive Ms. Sturgeon, the policy to allow a free for all in travel to India from these islands was largely driven by Mr Johnson, allegedly so that he could cultivate a trade deal with India. Ms Sturgeon, it could be argued, has clearly been pretty crap at managing the fallout from that.
Shocking as it is public health disasters don't care who is in power. Why have numbers spiked in rural Scotland? Especially places like Highland which escaped largely unscathed before? Because tourism. Because NC500. Because "staycations".
The start in the spike in these places is indeed before Scottish schools went back. Broadly in line with when English schools broke up...
Spike coincided with England school break up down here in Pembrokeshire. I hope things will improve before too long.
Aren’t younger people are paying for their own future social care via the NI rise?
It’s a tricky issue obviously, instinctively I thought older people should use equity from their home to pay for it if possible, but we don’t ask them to do that for any other disease, so maybe that’s wrong.
When I were a lad there was a hospital for older people/gentlefolk 100 yards from my house. We used to take them flowers at school. Now it’s been developed for housing. I think it should still be a hospital for gentlefolk
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Meanwhile supply chains continue to reconfigure themselves so that the UK GB is cut out of the loop completely. There won't be the need for much in the way of fudge once we have completed the process of divorcing NI - the remaining bit of trade will be minor enough for the barriers to not be a problem.
Maybe we should bring in a law saying no-one can own more than one property. That would free up a lot of housing.
Banning things? That's not very liberal.
Well, when I suggested there should be a hefty tax, every LibDem second home owner on pb.com had a massive fit.
In the end, I was told that second homers are needed to keep pretty places like Southwold or Tenby or the Lake District pretty .... and we should be grateful to them.
One home is a need, two homes is a luxury. It is perfectly justifiable to tax luxuries at significantly higher rates
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Tube coverage for 4G/5G by the end of 2024, finally
You are such a pleb.
Last few times I’ve been in London and used Uber Luxury.
Really nice cars from LWB Merc series 6 to a Rolls Royce, all the vehicles had their own Wi-fi for us to use.
I even get the bus sometimes. I love London, we just rub along together.
Walk. Fresh air and exercise.
I haven't got a taxi in years, Getting a taxi generally means you've failed to plan your journey properly. There are very few journeys which can be done more efficiently by taxi than by public transport. Granted, I live in Greater Manchester where public transport is plentiful. The picture may be different in, say, the Peak District, after dark.
Your last bit is the only sensible bit, anyone not living in a city has great issues using public transport to get there the same day and without multiple journeys.
There is nothing sensible about being out in the Peak District after dark.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
Aren’t younger people are paying for their own future social care via the NI rise?
It’s a tricky issue obviously, instinctively I thought older people should use equity from their home to pay for it if possible, but we don’t ask them to do that for any other disease, so maybe that’s wrong.
When I were a lad there was a hospital for older people/gentlefolk 100 yards from my house. We used to take them flowers at school. Now it’s been developed for housing. I think it should still be a hospital for gentlefolk
I believe that the problem is based on the fact that the money being contributed through NI just goes to pay the current bill, it isn't being paid in to a Nordic style wealth fund that will fund our future care and social security needs. So the situation can quickly change, and there is no guarantee that future generations will be happy to fund our later life care in the same way.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
Presumably you are using the royal 'we' given that you voted for us to become a third country.
On housing, unless I've missed it nobody has mentioned the malign impact of Airbnb.
In my city, an expanding amount of property is available via Airbnb, and those renting it out are making an absolute killing. This obviously reduces the volume of housing available (both to rent to live in, and to buy) and pushes up prices. I don't think it will be long before action is needed to limit this, as I believe has already happened in Barcelona and elsewhere.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
With regard to the header; this does not suprise me at all. A few quid on national insurance, a tax which few people really understand, is going to go unnoticed in a way that an income tax rise would not. Perhaps that is the logic behind the whole thing.
For many people the takeaway from all of this will be - sadly - that you should pay as little tax as is legally possible. If the government are being cynical, unfair and devious, why should you be any different?
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
Presumably you are using the royal 'we' given that you voted for us to become a third country.
I don't recall that being the question on the ballot paper.
Looking at the tables in today’s YouGov, Labour & LibDem supporters are more in favour of the 1% rise than Conservatives, who are still in support of it - so why are Labour disagreeing? Because they’ve been told they don’t oppose enough by focus groups?
On housing, unless I've missed it nobody has mentioned the malign impact of Airbnb.
In my city, an expanding amount of property is available via Airbnb, and those renting it out are making an absolute killing. This obviously reduces the volume of housing available (both to rent to live in, and to buy) and pushes up prices. I don't think it will be long before action is needed to limit this, as I believe has already happened in Barcelona and elsewhere.
The discussion around affordability seems to assume house prices have nothing to do with the govt. Yet there are loads of things, such as restricting airbnb that the government can do to reduce prices and increase affordability, along with other actions such as ever increasing housing benefit or stamp duty holidays which increase prices and reduce affordability.
A government run or underwritten scheme to allow us to pool risk is the best way out of the social care problem. Care is a personal issue, people have a wide range of circumstances and there are gradations before total 24H care is needed. A voluntary or possibly compulsory payment or commitment to pay from the estate a sum of money and then a guarantee of free care. Those without funds subsidised from tax as now. If the scheme is voluntary then keep the current rules (maybe more draconian) for payment from wealth / estate if care needed for those who opt out.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Yes I am pleased. We hold all the cards, either they back down and renegotiate the deal as we demand - or we invoke Article 16 and unilaterally take what we want.
Either way, they don't get what they want. And they already gave away the rest of what we wanted last time only taking the Protocol as their key prize - a prize that is now turning to dust in their mouth. Because we held the cards then too.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
PS when this century has the right campaigned against international red tape?
Domestic red tape is what gets objected to normally.
On housing, unless I've missed it nobody has mentioned the malign impact of Airbnb.
In my city, an expanding amount of property is available via Airbnb, and those renting it out are making an absolute killing. This obviously reduces the volume of housing available (both to rent to live in, and to buy) and pushes up prices. I don't think it will be long before action is needed to limit this, as I believe has already happened in Barcelona and elsewhere.
The discussion around affordability seems to assume house prices have nothing to do with the govt. Yet there are loads of things, such as restricting airbnb that the government can do to reduce prices and increase affordability, along with other actions such as ever increasing housing benefit or stamp duty holidays which increase prices and reduce affordability.
Tube coverage for 4G/5G by the end of 2024, finally
You are such a pleb.
Last few times I’ve been in London and used Uber Luxury.
Really nice cars from LWB Merc series 6 to a Rolls Royce, all the vehicles had their own Wi-fi for us to use.
I even get the bus sometimes. I love London, we just rub along together.
Walk. Fresh air and exercise.
I haven't got a taxi in years, Getting a taxi generally means you've failed to plan your journey properly. There are very few journeys which can be done more efficiently by taxi than by public transport. Granted, I live in Greater Manchester where public transport is plentiful. The picture may be different in, say, the Peak District, after dark.
Greater Manchester is probably something like the optimum balance of decent housing, public transport, high enough (But not mad London high) house prices; areas with a character of their own compared to the dirt cheap but no jobs Durham pit villages or loads of jobs but mad prices of London. My friend lives in Cheadle and it seems a happy enough place if you don't mind being under a flightpath.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
PS when this century has the right campaigned against international red tape?
Domestic red tape is what gets objected to normally.
Thatcher? What do you think the Single European Act was about? Thatcher literally claimed credit for it.
On housing, unless I've missed it nobody has mentioned the malign impact of Airbnb.
In my city, an expanding amount of property is available via Airbnb, and those renting it out are making an absolute killing. This obviously reduces the volume of housing available (both to rent to live in, and to buy) and pushes up prices. I don't think it will be long before action is needed to limit this, as I believe has already happened in Barcelona and elsewhere.
I've been in the airbnb game and have a different view of this issue. My experience was that it was very hard work making an airbnb rental more profitable than a permanent letting. There is always uncertainty about the regulatory framework in which you are operating and tax rules change frequently making it an anxiety ridden enterprise. The people making a killing out of it undoubtedly exist, but they are in a minority. I was glad to be out of it.
One issue is that the government basically stripped Council's ability to control airbnb's a few years ago, by relaxing planning rules. This was astonishing, as they are so obsessed with providing more housing, but it was done in the name of growth and through its deranged faith in deregulation. So where airbnb's become a problem, as it did for instance in London, it is harder for Council's to do anything about it.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
And by the way I qualified my support if you read my post properly
G, you are too polite , he is a greedy grasping two faced arsehole. Fact you paid in for 50 years has escaped his pea brain and as you say , happy to get free lolly himself, bloody hypocrite. It is great pensioners don't have to be soaked yet another time to suit these whining lazy gits.
I did not read CHB's statement of his personal circumstances as a boast.
He was just being derogatory to BigG as he is a pensioner, who has paid his way all his life. Yet is perfectly happy to be given a shedload as a freebie but thinks he can then malign people who had to work all their lives and do it themselves. Hypocritical to me. I have also worked all my life , my only ever inheritance was £6K , everything I have is through 50 years of hard work and I don't take kindly to arseholes who have been lucky to have been working a few years pontificating about how well pensioners have done whilst rolling in free money themselves. I was being polite about him previously.
Malcolm £6k in 1923 was a fair whack. No wonder you are living the life of Reilly now.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
A16 will be used to dis-apply the sections that relate to trade. Which as its a trading agreement blows the thing up.
Anyway, its almost certainly going to happen (and always was as we agreed to the unagreeable). And Philip assures me that it is a Good Thing. So I look forward to it happening and freeing us from the shitfest that is trying to send stuff inside what used to be the UK trade zone.
Great to see the big affordability debate continuing having popped back onto the site after a few hours.
You won't be disappointed to discover that like the rest of the British political establishment we have found zero solutions that are practically and/or politically viable.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I'm, like, super good at maths, and I don't see the problem with applying an average to an average to get a useful illustration of the situation?
Pointing out that there will be outliers in all directions is so obviously true that saying it is practically insulting.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Tube coverage for 4G/5G by the end of 2024, finally
You are such a pleb.
Last few times I’ve been in London and used Uber Luxury.
Really nice cars from LWB Merc series 6 to a Rolls Royce, all the vehicles had their own Wi-fi for us to use.
I even get the bus sometimes. I love London, we just rub along together.
Walk. Fresh air and exercise.
I haven't got a taxi in years, Getting a taxi generally means you've failed to plan your journey properly. There are very few journeys which can be done more efficiently by taxi than by public transport. Granted, I live in Greater Manchester where public transport is plentiful. The picture may be different in, say, the Peak District, after dark.
Greater Manchester is probably something like the optimum balance of decent housing, public transport, high enough (But not mad London high) house prices; areas with a character of their own compared to the dirt cheap but no jobs Durham pit villages or loads of jobs but mad prices of London. My friend lives in Cheadle and it seems a happy enough place if you don't mind being under a flightpath.
Greater Manchester is indeed the optimum balance If I am to make any complaint about my own bit of GM (Trafford) it is that it is too flat. Praised by faint damnation. But even in Greater Manchester - my big learning of the pandemic - there is lots of really quite dramatic countryside. You don't even have to get into Derbyshire to experience hills. Northern GM is also still remarkably good value for housing. Cheadle is also a very happy place - I grew up close by - and only a relatively small part of it is impacted by massive aeroplanes roaring over you every 120 seconds.
The only pity for the George Russell to Mercedes move is that it risks being at the point where the team stops being all-conquering and starts slipping backwards. Unlike Williams who seem to have pulled off a miraculous transformation from dire to midfield competitive as the family departed.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
PS when this century has the right campaigned against international red tape?
Domestic red tape is what gets objected to normally.
Thatcher? What do you think the Single European Act was about? Thatcher literally claimed credit for it.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
So even on median figures the point stands and there are simply not enough affordable homes in London for those on the median London wage to be able to afford to buy
Tube coverage for 4G/5G by the end of 2024, finally
You are such a pleb.
Last few times I’ve been in London and used Uber Luxury.
Really nice cars from LWB Merc series 6 to a Rolls Royce, all the vehicles had their own Wi-fi for us to use.
I even get the bus sometimes. I love London, we just rub along together.
Walk. Fresh air and exercise.
I haven't got a taxi in years, Getting a taxi generally means you've failed to plan your journey properly. There are very few journeys which can be done more efficiently by taxi than by public transport. Granted, I live in Greater Manchester where public transport is plentiful. The picture may be different in, say, the Peak District, after dark.
Greater Manchester is probably something like the optimum balance of decent housing, public transport, high enough (But not mad London high) house prices; areas with a character of their own compared to the dirt cheap but no jobs Durham pit villages or loads of jobs but mad prices of London. My friend lives in Cheadle and it seems a happy enough place if you don't mind being under a flightpath.
Greater Manchester is indeed the optimum balance If I am to make any complaint about my own bit of GM (Trafford) it is that it is too flat. Praised by faint damnation. But even in Greater Manchester - my big learning of the pandemic - there is lots of really quite dramatic countryside. You don't even have to get into Derbyshire to experience hills. Northern GM is also still remarkably good value for housing. Cheadle is also a very happy place - I grew up close by - and only a relatively small part of it is impacted by massive aeroplanes roaring over you every 120 seconds.
Hah. I certainly like where I live but you couldn't make an entire nation's economy run off of everywhere being like Oldcotes.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Mr. Pioneers, jein. Don't forget, Williams were competitive in 2014, I think, best of the rest that year.
They've benefited significantly from Russell being a fantastic talent. They're still one of the teams at the back, and are aided by Haas' woes this year. Next season is a great opportunity for them to step up, though.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Since Article 16 is a legitimate part of the Treaty to be exercised, the EU are actually quite limited in what responses they can have within the confines of the Treaty.
Unless they wish to break the Treaty, which A16 doesn't do.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Mr. Pioneers, jein. Don't forget, Williams were competitive in 2014, I think, best of the rest that year.
They've benefited significantly from Russell being a fantastic talent. They're still one of the teams at the back, and are aided by Haas' woes this year. Next season is a great opportunity for them to step up, though.
Haas's woes this year are because they did the absolutely minimum for this season so they could concentrate on next year as much as possible.
That may mean they won't be bottom next year could be a problem for Williams.
Aren’t younger people are paying for their own future social care via the NI rise?
It’s a tricky issue obviously, instinctively I thought older people should use equity from their home to pay for it if possible, but we don’t ask them to do that for any other disease, so maybe that’s wrong.
When I were a lad there was a hospital for older people/gentlefolk 100 yards from my house. We used to take them flowers at school. Now it’s been developed for housing. I think it should still be a hospital for gentlefolk
I believe that the problem is based on the fact that the money being contributed through NI just goes to pay the current bill, it isn't being paid in to a Nordic style wealth fund that will fund our future care and social security needs. So the situation can quickly change, and there is no guarantee that future generations will be happy to fund our later life care in the same way.
We should have emulated Norway with their national oil fund for the future.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Since Article 16 is a legitimate part of the Treaty to be exercised, the EU are actually quite limited in what responses they can have within the confines of the Treaty.
Unless they wish to break the Treaty, which A16 doesn't do.
Responses to what is considered an unreasonable invocation are also a legitimate part of the Treaty.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Why did I believe England had a chance of getting the runs?
No chance now, need to try and bat out the day. Which they probably won't do.
There's a very slim chance of getting the runs. A Root century, a Woakes half-century and we're nearly there.
But if the batsman try to just protect the wickets and let the Indians bowl super-aggressively for the rest of the day we will not get a draw.
Woakes has incredible statistics for an all rounder in England but they're not going to try and bat at over 4 an over with 6 down ! The chance of going for the win disappeared a few wickets back.
Aren’t younger people are paying for their own future social care via the NI rise?
It’s a tricky issue obviously, instinctively I thought older people should use equity from their home to pay for it if possible, but we don’t ask them to do that for any other disease, so maybe that’s wrong.
When I were a lad there was a hospital for older people/gentlefolk 100 yards from my house. We used to take them flowers at school. Now it’s been developed for housing. I think it should still be a hospital for gentlefolk
I believe that the problem is based on the fact that the money being contributed through NI just goes to pay the current bill, it isn't being paid in to a Nordic style wealth fund that will fund our future care and social security needs. So the situation can quickly change, and there is no guarantee that future generations will be happy to fund our later life care in the same way.
We should have emulated Norway with their national oil fund for the future.
And killed off 90% of our population to make sure it had the same per capita impact.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Moeen Ali, averaged 17.5 with the bat and 56 with the ball this test and an economy rate of over 4.5. His piss poor performance is a big reason we're in the hole we're in I'm afraid, a tidier bowling performance would have meant chasing perhaps 300 or so; of which he should have contributed ~ 60 with the bat over the two innings not 35.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Since Article 16 is a legitimate part of the Treaty to be exercised, the EU are actually quite limited in what responses they can have within the confines of the Treaty.
Unless they wish to break the Treaty, which A16 doesn't do.
Responses to what is considered an unreasonable invocation are also a legitimate part of the Treaty.
But its not unreasonable.
Nobody is even arguing with Frost that the conditions to invoke it have been met. Are you denying that they have?
The conditions to invoke it are quite explicit and they've quite clearly been met.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Exactly and that was my only point too. I'm glad you understood it.
Of course the London property market is f***ed and I've come up with three solutions to fix it earlier in discussion with Rochdale.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Did he ever say "arithmetic mean" at any point in the past three hours? Or did you or Phil ( @isam it's happened again) just assume it.
I haven't been around for every post so would like to know.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
So even on median figures the point stands and there are simply not enough affordable homes in London for those on the median London wage to be able to afford to buy
Finally.
Please remember I kept saying I didn't disagree with you on affordability so I don't know why you keep trying to argue with me on that, but you do now agree your use of the arithmetic mean was wrong.
Go on say it, I know you can. Say I was wrong. I have already done it once today so I'm sure you can.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Did he ever say "arithmetic mean" at any point in the past three hours? Or did you or Phil ( @isam it's happened again) just assume it.
I haven't been around for every post so would like to know.
I think he just said "average", and it was inferred (probably reasonably) that the arithmetic mean was meant.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
What kind of trade sanctions are you anticipating?
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Since Article 16 is a legitimate part of the Treaty to be exercised, the EU are actually quite limited in what responses they can have within the confines of the Treaty.
Unless they wish to break the Treaty, which A16 doesn't do.
Responses to what is considered an unreasonable invocation are also a legitimate part of the Treaty.
But its not unreasonable.
Nobody is even arguing with Frost that the conditions to invoke it have been met. Are you denying that they have?
The conditions to invoke it are quite explicit and they've quite clearly been met.
The unreasonableness, or not, will ultimately be decided by the dispute resolution process if the parties do not agree. Invoking Article 16 also covers a multitude of actions - from the relatively minor to the nuclear. Let's see what happens. As I say, the idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to undo the mess they have created is for the fairies.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Did he ever say "arithmetic mean" at any point in the past three hours? Or did you or Phil ( @isam it's happened again) just assume it.
I haven't been around for every post so would like to know.
He pulled a stat out (no surprise there) which was the mean. I even clarified that at the beginning re which average was being used.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Did he ever say "arithmetic mean" at any point in the past three hours? Or did you or Phil ( @isam it's happened again) just assume it.
I haven't been around for every post so would like to know.
I think he just said "average", and it was inferred (probably reasonably) that the arithmetic mean was meant.
I know he said average. And then all hell broke loose. But his maths isn't wrong and, in particular in the terms that you have described, ie using median as the average, he is likely right.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
So even on median figures the point stands and there are simply not enough affordable homes in London for those on the median London wage to be able to afford to buy
Finally.
Please remember I kept saying I didn't disagree with you on affordability so I don't know why you keep trying to argue with me on that, but you do now agree your use of the arithmetic mean was wrong.
Go on say it, I know you can. Say I was wrong. I have already done it once today so I'm sure you can.
If you are comparing the mean London salary to the mean London house price/mean price first time buyers paid or the lower median London salary to the lower median London house price it really makes little difference.
Both are distorted and both show the average Londoner cannot afford to buy in London. You were just being pedantic for the sake of it really
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Exactly and that was my only point too. I'm glad you understood it.
Of course the London property market is f***ed and I've come up with three solutions to fix it earlier in discussion with Rochdale.
But that doesn't defend the bad use of maths.
Well to be fair I don't think it makes me a genius to understand it; I would hope everyone would.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
What kind trade sanctions are you anticipating?
I have absolutely no idea. My argument is that the EU is not just going to stand by and allow Frost and Johnson to take action that it does not agree with. I suspect the level of response will depend on what practical steps the government takes when (and it does look like when) it invokes Article 16.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Did he ever say "arithmetic mean" at any point in the past three hours? Or did you or Phil ( @isam it's happened again) just assume it.
I haven't been around for every post so would like to know.
He pulled a stat out (no surprise there) which was the mean. I even clarified that at the beginning re which average was being used.
Ah in which case fair enough. He's still probably right using the mean, that said, but he did use mean not median.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
PS when this century has the right campaigned against international red tape?
Domestic red tape is what gets objected to normally.
Thatcher? What do you think the Single European Act was about? Thatcher literally claimed credit for it.
She correctly claimed credit for it. She and Nigel Lawson were the principle architects. Todays swivel-eyed Euro-phobes (including Nigel Lawson who, like williamglenn is a volte face Brexiteer) trashed her greatest legacy.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
What kind trade sanctions are you anticipating?
I have absolutely no idea. My argument is that the EU is not just going to stand by and allow Frost and Johnson to take action that it does not agree with. I suspect the level of response will depend on what practical steps the government takes when (and it does look like when) it invokes Article 16.
Is it not the case that since January, the EU has stood by while the UK took actions it didn't agree with? (Or at least they did nothing more than futile gestures.)
Aren’t younger people are paying for their own future social care via the NI rise?
It’s a tricky issue obviously, instinctively I thought older people should use equity from their home to pay for it if possible, but we don’t ask them to do that for any other disease, so maybe that’s wrong.
When I were a lad there was a hospital for older people/gentlefolk 100 yards from my house. We used to take them flowers at school. Now it’s been developed for housing. I think it should still be a hospital for gentlefolk
I believe that the problem is based on the fact that the money being contributed through NI just goes to pay the current bill, it isn't being paid in to a Nordic style wealth fund that will fund our future care and social security needs. So the situation can quickly change, and there is no guarantee that future generations will be happy to fund our later life care in the same way.
We should have emulated Norway with their national oil fund for the future.
And killed off 90% of our population to make sure it had the same per capita impact.
Even in terms of raw production, Stajtford has outproduced the entire UK's historical output so far as I can tell judging by the wiki graphs.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
What kind trade sanctions are you anticipating?
I have absolutely no idea. My argument is that the EU is not just going to stand by and allow Frost and Johnson to take action that it does not agree with. I suspect the level of response will depend on what practical steps the government takes when (and it does look like when) it invokes Article 16.
Is it not the case that since January, the EU has stood by while the UK took actions it didn't agree with? (Or at least they did nothing more than futile gestures.)
If ever there was a journey, William, it was yours.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
Since Article 16 is a legitimate part of the Treaty to be exercised, the EU are actually quite limited in what responses they can have within the confines of the Treaty.
Unless they wish to break the Treaty, which A16 doesn't do.
Responses to what is considered an unreasonable invocation are also a legitimate part of the Treaty.
But its not unreasonable.
Nobody is even arguing with Frost that the conditions to invoke it have been met. Are you denying that they have?
The conditions to invoke it are quite explicit and they've quite clearly been met.
The unreasonableness, or not, will ultimately be decided by the dispute resolution process if the parties do not agree. Invoking Article 16 also covers a multitude of actions - from the relatively minor to the nuclear. Let's see what happens. As I say, the idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to undo the mess they have created is for the fairies.
Frost and Johnson didn't create the mess.
May and Barnier created the mess by going arse about tit and choosing to "sort out" the Northern Ireland issue before the future of UK/EU trading relationship was sorted. Which was an impossibility that got us bogged down in a horrendous mess.
Johnson and Frost sorted out 97% of the mess by sorting out the UK and EU's trading relationship first which is what should have happened all along.
Now they're going back to sort out the final 3% as the last part of the negotiations. As they should have always been, instead of the first.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Well, the median is 1. So as long as you restrict yourself to quoting medians, you'll be fine.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
Well of course you are right and of course it isn't that skewed and I hope you aren't going down the line of HYUFD and thinking I am arguing that London house prices are affordable cos I'm not.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
Exactly and that was my only point too. I'm glad you understood it.
Of course the London property market is f***ed and I've come up with three solutions to fix it earlier in discussion with Rochdale.
But that doesn't defend the bad use of maths.
Gosh, amazing. Your self belief is so overwhelming I am wondering whether you shouldn't be invited onto SAGE? Can you please find just one solution to the centuries long "Irish Question" or world hunger? Are there any complex challenges to which you cannot find simple solutions to?
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
PS when this century has the right campaigned against international red tape?
Domestic red tape is what gets objected to normally.
Thatcher? What do you think the Single European Act was about? Thatcher literally claimed credit for it.
She correctly claimed credit for it. She and Nigel Lawson were the principle architects. Todays swivel-eyed Euro-phobes (including Nigel Lawson who, like williamglenn is a volte face Brexiteer) trashed her greatest legacy.
Her greatest legacy was rolling back the frontiers of the state in Britain, not seeing them be reimposed with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels.
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
What kind trade sanctions are you anticipating?
I have absolutely no idea. My argument is that the EU is not just going to stand by and allow Frost and Johnson to take action that it does not agree with. I suspect the level of response will depend on what practical steps the government takes when (and it does look like when) it invokes Article 16.
Is it not the case that since January, the EU has stood by while the UK took actions it didn't agree with? (Or at least they did nothing more than futile gestures.)
Yep, there has been a welcome level of patience. Invoking Article 16 is upping the ante. However, if the EU has no problem with it, then obviously there will be no repercussions. That will depend on what invocation entails in practice. If it's just about getting a few headlines in the UK press, which seems to be the standard government approach, then relatively little will actually change and the EU may feel that no action is needed. But all the noises seem to be suggesting more than that.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
I would have hated being your maths teacher. I can just imagine you in front of Turing -'No your wrong, I'm right'. Did you argue with your maths teacher?
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
The Maths is quite clear, even for the average worker on an average London salary combining the salary of them and their partner for a 4.5 times salary mortgage plus a 10% deposit they would not be able to afford the average London property or even the average property price paid by first time buyers in London for property.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
I said I was going to stop, but one more go. What is the average of these numbers @HYUFD:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
So even on median figures the point stands and there are simply not enough affordable homes in London for those on the median London wage to be able to afford to buy
Finally.
Please remember I kept saying I didn't disagree with you on affordability so I don't know why you keep trying to argue with me on that, but you do now agree your use of the arithmetic mean was wrong.
Go on say it, I know you can. Say I was wrong. I have already done it once today so I'm sure you can.
If you are comparing the mean London salary to the mean London house price/mean price first time buyers paid or the lower median London salary to the lower median London house price it really makes little difference.
Both are distorted and both show the average Londoner cannot afford to buy in London. You were just being pedantic for the sake of it really
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
What kind trade sanctions are you anticipating?
I have absolutely no idea. My argument is that the EU is not just going to stand by and allow Frost and Johnson to take action that it does not agree with. I suspect the level of response will depend on what practical steps the government takes when (and it does look like when) it invokes Article 16.
Is it not the case that since January, the EU has stood by while the UK took actions it didn't agree with? (Or at least they did nothing more than futile gestures.)
If ever there was a journey, William, it was yours.
I have suggested he should change his nom de plume to williamvolteface or williamthedamacene
Entirely predictable move to kick the intra-Irish border fuckup into the grass again. We keep waiting for the EU to compromise the external EEA border. It doesn't.
Is it not compromised at the moment?
No more than usual. We are *aligned* to the EEA so allowing ever-decreasing volumes of stuff across with minimal checks is no threat.
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
We have agreed an actual free trade deal.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
It'd the kind of "free trade" that the right have campaigned against for decades - slow, costly, red-tape heavy. As for checks I don't think the EEA side are that bothered. If sales to the GB drop they have the rest of the market to sell to. It is our problem, not theirs.
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Article 16 is part of the deal, so why do you think using it for the purpose for which it is intended would blow it up?
Unlike UVDL unilaterally invoking Article 16 at night with zero notice, not even discussing it with Dublin first . . . Frost has been laying the groundwork for potentially invoking Article 16 for many months now.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
And when that happens - as it almost certainly will - the EU will respond by imposing trade sanctions of its choice on us. There are no wins here, Phil. Just further isolation for the UK.
The EU already tried to escalate it and was forced to back down. The idea that they have unlimited scope to be punitive has been proven to be wrong.
Who is talking about unlimited power?
You are suggesting that the EU can arbitrarily decide that the use of Article 16 is "unreasonable" and then act outside the treaty to impose "trade sanctions of its choice".
It can and it will argue that the sanctions are proportionate and reasonable, and then the issue will proceed to dispute resolution. In the meantime, the sanctions are imposed and we all suffer the consequences. The idea that there are pain-free ways for Johnson and Frost to tackle the mess that they created is for the fairies.
What kind trade sanctions are you anticipating?
I have absolutely no idea. My argument is that the EU is not just going to stand by and allow Frost and Johnson to take action that it does not agree with. I suspect the level of response will depend on what practical steps the government takes when (and it does look like when) it invokes Article 16.
Is it not the case that since January, the EU has stood by while the UK took actions it didn't agree with? (Or at least they did nothing more than futile gestures.)
If ever there was a journey, William, it was yours.
I made the same journey, just four years earlier.
Rochdale made the same journey as William in reverse.
Comments
European civilization is built on ham and cheese, which allowed protein to be stored throughout the icy winters.
Without this, urban societies in most of central Europe would simply not have been possible.
This is also why we have hardback books. Here's why.
https://twitter.com/incunabula/status/1434803410902167552?s=20
Without inflation there's no chance to solve this.
Sad.
Does it never ever cross your mind that a number (probably all) of us on here are more numerate than you when we point this stuff out?
We are not talking Politics here, or the existence of God. That is stuff that is opinion and there is other stuff that isn't. Maths isn't and you misuse it all the time and can never see it when pointed out to you.
It’s a tricky issue obviously, instinctively I thought older people should use equity from their home to pay for it if possible, but we don’t ask them to do that for any other disease, so maybe that’s wrong.
When I were a lad there was a hospital for older people/gentlefolk 100 yards from my house. We used to take them flowers at school. Now it’s been developed for housing. I think it should still be a hospital for gentlefolk
https://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/stgeorgehornchurch.html
Meanwhile supply chains continue to reconfigure themselves so that the
UKGB is cut out of the loop completely. There won't be the need for much in the way of fudge once we have completed the process of divorcing NI - the remaining bit of trade will be minor enough for the barriers to not be a problem.https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/trackers/britains-mood-measured-weekly
As we are pledged to not lower things like food standards we could have agreed an actual free trade deal. But no, we want to be a 3rd country and then complain about what that means in practice.
I have no qualms with us being a third country. If they wish to impose checks at our countries border that's their choice, but they don't want to. That's their problem, they should solve it.
In my city, an expanding amount of property is available via Airbnb, and those renting it out are making an absolute killing. This obviously reduces the volume of housing available (both to rent to live in, and to buy) and pushes up prices. I don't think it will be long before action is needed to limit this, as I believe has already happened in Barcelona and elsewhere.
As I have already made clear too there are far too many average earners or below average earners in London seeking to buy the few properties cheaper than that in London for the limited supply available.
For many people the takeaway from all of this will be - sadly - that you should pay as little tax as is legally possible. If the government are being cynical, unfair and devious, why should you be any different?
Anyway you should be pleased! The Lord Brexiteer is once again threatening to trigger A16 and blow up the deal. Which you have assured me is the point where it starts to work. So a solution is at hand is it not...
Either way, they don't get what they want. And they already gave away the rest of what we wanted last time only taking the Protocol as their key prize - a prize that is now turning to dust in their mouth. Because we held the cards then too.
Domestic red tape is what gets objected to normally.
My friend lives in Cheadle and it seems a happy enough place if you don't mind being under a flightpath.
He said to Parliament, to the EU and in public repeatedly that the threshold for invocation is met but he wishes to try other solutions first. If the other solutions fail, there can be no objection to invocation happening. Its not like they haven't been warned that the threshold for invoking it had been met already.
One issue is that the government basically stripped Council's ability to control airbnb's a few years ago, by relaxing planning rules. This was astonishing, as they are so obsessed with providing more housing, but it was done in the name of growth and through its deranged faith in deregulation. So where airbnb's become a problem, as it did for instance in London, it is harder for Council's to do anything about it.
Anyway, its almost certainly going to happen (and always was as we agreed to the unagreeable). And Philip assures me that it is a Good Thing. So I look forward to it happening and freeing us from the shitfest that is trying to send stuff inside what used to be the UK trade zone.
Pointing out that there will be outliers in all directions is so obviously true that saying it is practically insulting.
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1,000,000.
Do you see the issue now? I know it is rather exaggerated but hopefully you can see the flaw you made now. And as Dixiedean said the same issue happens with salaries so counter-acting the issue.
So I expect you are right re affordability but the argument you keep putting re the averages is wrong and most first time buyers do not pay the average price of a first time buyer house (see the example I gave, the vast majority of the numbers were below the arithmetic average).
Northern GM is also still remarkably good value for housing.
Cheadle is also a very happy place - I grew up close by - and only a relatively small part of it is impacted by massive aeroplanes roaring over you every 120 seconds.
Anyway, it's obvious that the distribution of house prices isn't anything like that skewed - for most approximate purposes, assuming it's a normal distribution will be perfectly adequate.
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/average-uk-salary
So even on median figures the point stands and there are simply not enough affordable homes in London for those on the median London wage to be able to afford to buy
Fantastic bowling by the Indians, and poor defensive batting not preventing the wickets falling from England.
They've benefited significantly from Russell being a fantastic talent. They're still one of the teams at the back, and are aided by Haas' woes this year. Next season is a great opportunity for them to step up, though.
Unless they wish to break the Treaty, which A16 doesn't do.
But if the batsman try to just protect the wickets and let the Indians bowl super-aggressively for the rest of the day we will not get a draw.
That may mean they won't be bottom next year could be a problem for Williams.
Looks like even that won't be enough.
The chance of going for the win disappeared a few wickets back.
I am doing one thing and one thing only and that is pointing out that the assumption HYUFD jumped to was bollocks. He used the arithmetic mean and assumed the price most 1st time buyers would have to pay was the arithmetic mean, which is wrong.
His piss poor performance is a big reason we're in the hole we're in I'm afraid, a tidier bowling performance would have meant chasing perhaps 300 or so; of which he should have contributed ~ 60 with the bat over the two innings not 35.
Nobody is even arguing with Frost that the conditions to invoke it have been met. Are you denying that they have?
The conditions to invoke it are quite explicit and they've quite clearly been met.
Of course the London property market is f***ed and I've come up with three solutions to fix it earlier in discussion with Rochdale.
But that doesn't defend the bad use of maths.
I haven't been around for every post so would like to know.
Please remember I kept saying I didn't disagree with you on affordability so I don't know why you keep trying to argue with me on that, but you do now agree your use of the arithmetic mean was wrong.
Go on say it, I know you can. Say I was wrong. I have already done it once today so I'm sure you can.
Both are distorted and both show the average Londoner cannot afford to buy in London. You were just being pedantic for the sake of it really
May and Barnier created the mess by going arse about tit and choosing to "sort out" the Northern Ireland issue before the future of UK/EU trading relationship was sorted. Which was an impossibility that got us bogged down in a horrendous mess.
Johnson and Frost sorted out 97% of the mess by sorting out the UK and EU's trading relationship first which is what should have happened all along.
Now they're going back to sort out the final 3% as the last part of the negotiations. As they should have always been, instead of the first.
Rochdale made the same journey as William in reverse.