It’s the housing costs, stupid? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
To be bizarre, Shirley it needs to be strange and unusual?Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
You can hear exactly the sentiments you describe, up and down the country.
1) We need more houses
2) Nothing on new land
3) Nothing near me or mine
1 -
Stamp duty should be abolished, along with Council Tax, and rolled into a LVT.StillWaters said:
It’s more about removing the disincentive of stamp duty.pm215 said:
How do you propose to do this without it being perceived as (or actually being) another massive bung to the elderly?Sandpit said:
Incentivise people to trade down once their kids have flown the nest, to leave larger houses for growing families.
Unclear how many would take it, anyway, if they haven't already been drawn by the cashback inherent in downsizing. I know somebody who now lives alone in what was once the family five bedroom house -- but when the kids and grandkids are back for Christmas or Easter the house is full. I'm not sure they'd be very keen to give that up.
Perhaps remove the PPR relief from main residences but allow a rollover for new main residence purchase within, say, 36 months.
Use the funds to reduce stamp duty (and perhaps focus it on those downsizing)
Taxing mobility is completely the wrong attitude.3 -
I’m not sure that’s a good idea.Heathener said:Good morning all.
Excellent thread @TSE and you're right. Starmer seems to be onto this one and if they succeed then Labour will be in power for a generation.
About 2 terms (10 years) seems generally better and after that governments seem to run out of energy, ideas and people0 -
.
We briefly toyed with the idea of buying a luxury lodge home near Swannage. Bloody lovely, great location, close to the beach. Until I researched it. 300k for a glorified park home with 8 grand a year fees and you don't own the land. I think the actual lodge itself was only about 75k to buy brand new from the manufacturer anyway. No ta!RochdalePioneers said:
Can we please drop this myth than you can "own" an apartment? Do you own the land? Or the building? No, you are buying a yale key.kyf_100 said:
Dunno if you have FT access, but the figures here are startling:MattW said:
I'd basically agree with those (though leasehold flats do seem to sell), and add some more to reform the market further, plus generate greater availability in places to build and places to live.kyf_100 said:Build more houses.
Abolish leasehold - you'll never get people to buy flats until you do.
Stop propping up the market with stamp duty holidays, "help to buy" etc which only inflates the market.
Servicing the cost of putting a roof over your head destroys disposable income, destroys investment, sucks all the money out of the economy and gives it over to rent-seeking parasites, instead of being invested in productive capital.
It really is that simple.
I think Mr Starmer has quite a lot of that about right, but it will take longer than he hopes. It always does. His goals seem reasonably modest, which will help. I predict that little will seem to be achieved in 1-2 years, but more than expected in 5-7 years. He needs 2 terms.
I also note from the 2021-22 English Housing Survey:
1.83 The overall rate of under-occupation in England in 2021-22 was 39% with around 9.3 million households living in under-occupied homes (i.e. with two or more spare bedrooms), Annex Table 1.25.
1.84 Under-occupation was much more prevalent among owner occupiers than in the rented sectors. Over half (53%) of owner occupied households (8.3 million households) were under-occupied in 2021-22 compared with 15% of private rented (684,000) and 10% of social rented (408,000) households.
1.85 The overall proportion of under-occupied households among owner occupiers in England increased between 2011-12 and 2021-22 from 49% (7.0 million households) to 53% (8.3 million households). No change was seen among renters over the same time period,
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report
So I'd seek to promote lodgers more, and eg encourage people with Pieds a Terre flats to take a weekday lodging rather than taking up a whole flat, for example.
https://www.ft.com/content/df25ccc7-5dcf-446e-8a07-332ad5612f09
Everywhere else in the world, the value of flats has broadly kept up with the value of housing. Except the UK. Grenfell exposed the flaws in the leasehold system, left tons of people with unmanageable bills, "waking watch" (i.e. pay nine grand a year for someone to sit in reception on their phone "just in case" of a fire) etc.
Buy houses, rent apartments.2 -
Yeah well exactly. The older generation are supported in retirement by the state (ie through pensions, low tax rates) but this comes at the expense of younger people who are unable to access housing and can't bring up families. It manifests itself in the most frustrating way in opposition to new development. I dealt with a situation recently where a 3 storey building was being replaced by a 6 storey building - the same size as another existing building across the road and on a relatively isolated site away from the surrounding suburban housing. A 'brownfield' site in a city with a good chunk of affordable housing. But there was fierce opposition just because the building was regarded as too big and it would bring in too many people, changing the character of the area and causing parking problems. If this type of development cannot happen here where exactly is it going to happen?Heathener said:
Absolutely.darkage said:
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
I have another tory friend, male this time, 40. He's a card carrying party member, lives down here. He's deeply critical of his parents' generation on precisely this point. His argument is that by sheer good fortune they oversaw the greatest rise in housing value that this country has ever known, and will ever know. When they berate the (woke) younger generations, and claim that by contrast they earned their asset fortunes through hard work, it's largely bollocks. They got it mainly by luck and now have what he calls an appalling sense of entitlement.
That's all from my tory friend and I can't disagree with him. He's actually rather embittered about it.
1 -
In England leasehold generally, but not always, applies to blocks of flats. Less so to conversions of houses into two, or deliberately setup Tyneside Flats.Carnyx said:
England. Other countries may differ.RochdalePioneers said:
Can we please drop this myth than you can "own" an apartment? Do you own the land? Or the building? No, you are buying a yale key.kyf_100 said:
Dunno if you have FT access, but the figures here are startling:MattW said:
I'd basically agree with those (though leasehold flats do seem to sell), and add some more to reform the market further, plus generate greater availability in places to build and places to live.kyf_100 said:Build more houses.
Abolish leasehold - you'll never get people to buy flats until you do.
Stop propping up the market with stamp duty holidays, "help to buy" etc which only inflates the market.
Servicing the cost of putting a roof over your head destroys disposable income, destroys investment, sucks all the money out of the economy and gives it over to rent-seeking parasites, instead of being invested in productive capital.
It really is that simple.
I think Mr Starmer has quite a lot of that about right, but it will take longer than he hopes. It always does. His goals seem reasonably modest, which will help. I predict that little will seem to be achieved in 1-2 years, but more than expected in 5-7 years. He needs 2 terms.
I also note from the 2021-22 English Housing Survey:
1.83 The overall rate of under-occupation in England in 2021-22 was 39% with around 9.3 million households living in under-occupied homes (i.e. with two or more spare bedrooms), Annex Table 1.25.
1.84 Under-occupation was much more prevalent among owner occupiers than in the rented sectors. Over half (53%) of owner occupied households (8.3 million households) were under-occupied in 2021-22 compared with 15% of private rented (684,000) and 10% of social rented (408,000) households.
1.85 The overall proportion of under-occupied households among owner occupiers in England increased between 2011-12 and 2021-22 from 49% (7.0 million households) to 53% (8.3 million households). No change was seen among renters over the same time period,
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report
So I'd seek to promote lodgers more, and eg encourage people with Pieds a Terre flats to take a weekday lodging rather than taking up a whole flat, for example.
https://www.ft.com/content/df25ccc7-5dcf-446e-8a07-332ad5612f09
Everywhere else in the world, the value of flats has broadly kept up with the value of housing. Except the UK. Grenfell exposed the flaws in the leasehold system, left tons of people with unmanageable bills, "waking watch" (i.e. pay nine grand a year for someone to sit in reception on their phone "just in case" of a fire) etc.
Buy houses, rent apartments.
Overall it is more than 90%.
* Tyneside Flat = flats built like floors of a house, usually with each holding the freehold of the other and two front doors. It allows two dwellings in one structure with no landlord.1 -
Don't worry, we're on it.StillWaters said:
Don’t miss out on the right home because you think the price might fall further.twistedfirestopper3 said:
As I've been boringly saying for the last few months-we're looking to cash buy a new home. House prices are going south, and the slide is getting ever more slippery. Houses that were out of our budget 4 months ago are now well within our reach and we're in the bewildering place of having too much choice.darkage said:
That is also my expectation. There are definitely opportunities with this situation though, for instance, prices in London are attractive.Foxy said:
I expect a long bear market in real terms house prices for the next few years.darkage said:On this issue of housing - some level of correction is already happening because house prices are a) not rising with inflation but also b) falling in actual terms, which I think is a direct consequence of higher financing costs. There are as many winners from this as there are losers.
This is borne out by the poll highlighted. Whilst inflation is going up at 10% this is only reflected in higher housing costs for half of the respondents.
It may not be a case that the narrative of 'skyrocketing house prices and rents' is universally accurate.
My own view is that the era of house price inflation driving the economy is largely over, we are a year or so in to a long period of deflation, people just haven't realised it yet.
There are houses in my RightMove/Zoopla saved lists that have been to auction 3 times and not sold. Houses that have been reduced month after month and still for sale. Estate agents are phoning me every day with houses that have just come on to market or been reduced. I think there is still
further to fall, so probably won't make any
firm offers until the new year.
And there’s nothing to stop you making offers below asking that anticipate future price erosion1 -
The problem isn't those who can afford to get a mortgage at exorbitant house prices, its those who can't.MattW said:
In 2022 only 22% of purchases with a mortgage involved a single adult (ie single man, single woman or lone parent with dependent children).eek said:
Not if prices are at 5-7 times anverage earnings they won’t.EPG said:In broad terms, people who were 25-35 used to be more likely to be married, have an extra five years' work under their belts, and maybe even got handed a council house by the government at a significant discount. That's not replicable. More single under-35s equals more renters, it really is that simple, but they will eventually buy once they settle.
I'm surprised it's that low. Though that arguably itself says things about pressure on those demographic groups.
Even if adults with independent children are included, it is still under 40%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/286481/england-buying-with-mortgage-ownership-by-household-type/0 -
England's opening bowlers are just not competitive enough for this world cup, Woakes especially. And then they are on to Curran, A good, enthusiastic cricketer but unlikely to scare a set bowler. They urgently need some better pace.0
-
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
0 -
PPR is absolutely a huge part of the problem - it encourages people to overinvest in their principal residence because the gain is tax free. It makes them think about it as an asset not a cost.BartholomewRoberts said:
The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.darkage said:
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.
We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
You need rollover relief so that people aren’t able to move to a similar property without a big hit. And I’d be fine with CPI indexation of the value to avoid people being hit by inflation if they have held an asset a long time.2 -
England really should be looking to smash some Net Run Rate points in this game, so Afghanistan being 49-0 after 6 overs is not a promising start.DavidL said:England's opening bowlers are just not competitive enough for this world cup, Woakes especially. And then they are on to Curran, A good, enthusiastic cricketer but unlikely to scare a set bowler. They urgently need some better pace.
1 -
Agree. And the LVT should be brought in as a stealth reform of council tax.BartholomewRoberts said:
Stamp duty should be abolished, along with Council Tax, and rolled into a LVT.StillWaters said:
It’s more about removing the disincentive of stamp duty.pm215 said:
How do you propose to do this without it being perceived as (or actually being) another massive bung to the elderly?Sandpit said:
Incentivise people to trade down once their kids have flown the nest, to leave larger houses for growing families.
Unclear how many would take it, anyway, if they haven't already been drawn by the cashback inherent in downsizing. I know somebody who now lives alone in what was once the family five bedroom house -- but when the kids and grandkids are back for Christmas or Easter the house is full. I'm not sure they'd be very keen to give that up.
Perhaps remove the PPR relief from main residences but allow a rollover for new main residence purchase within, say, 36 months.
Use the funds to reduce stamp duty (and perhaps focus it on those downsizing)
Taxing mobility is completely the wrong attitude.1 -
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.1 -
The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories0 -
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.0 -
Good morningMalmesbury said:
To be bizarre, Shirley it needs to be strange and unusual?Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
You can hear exactly the sentiments you describe, up and down the country.
1) We need more houses
2) Nothing on new land
3) Nothing near me or mine
It is the same for:
increased taxes but not mine
We need power pylons but not near me
We need nuclear power but not near me
NIMBYism is alive and well and I doubt it will change, even with financial incentives2 -
That's pretty much exactly the Proportional Property Tax proposals that I have been arguing for for several years.Eabhal said:
Agree. And the LVT should be brought in as a stealth reform of council tax.BartholomewRoberts said:
Stamp duty should be abolished, along with Council Tax, and rolled into a LVT.StillWaters said:
It’s more about removing the disincentive of stamp duty.pm215 said:
How do you propose to do this without it being perceived as (or actually being) another massive bung to the elderly?Sandpit said:
Incentivise people to trade down once their kids have flown the nest, to leave larger houses for growing families.
Unclear how many would take it, anyway, if they haven't already been drawn by the cashback inherent in downsizing. I know somebody who now lives alone in what was once the family five bedroom house -- but when the kids and grandkids are back for Christmas or Easter the house is full. I'm not sure they'd be very keen to give that up.
Perhaps remove the PPR relief from main residences but allow a rollover for new main residence purchase within, say, 36 months.
Use the funds to reduce stamp duty (and perhaps focus it on those downsizing)
Taxing mobility is completely the wrong attitude.0 -
@DavidLammy
, on
@bbclaurak
, tells Victoria Derbyshire, that Labour members should not share platforms with people who spread devisive hate.
Must have finally rumbled Luke Akehurst!0 -
The only way to change it is to do what the Japanese and others have done and remove the requirement for planning consent if land is zoned appropriately and built to code.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningMalmesbury said:
To be bizarre, Shirley it needs to be strange and unusual?Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
You can hear exactly the sentiments you describe, up and down the country.
1) We need more houses
2) Nothing on new land
3) Nothing near me or mine
It is the same for:
increased taxes but not mine
We need power pylons but not near me
We need nuclear power but not near me
NIMBYism is alive and well and I doubt it will change, even with financial incentives
That way neighbours don't get a say. Want to change your home from a 2 story to a 3 or 6 story home [that meets code]? Just do it.
So the neighbours don't like it? So what? If the neighbours, and the Councillors, don't get a say then the fact NIMBYism exists is immaterial.0 -
Unfortunately, it is not a distant warBartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
This is one occasion when I sincerely hope your simplistic, unimaginative view of the world is right, and my more over-excitable but good-at-extrapolating perspective is utterly wrong0 -
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.1 -
deletedLeon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories0 -
One thing that can somewhat sate people fearful o development near them is ensuring that local facilities improve, or at least do not get worse.Malmesbury said:
To be bizarre, Shirley it needs to be strange and unusual?Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
You can hear exactly the sentiments you describe, up and down the country.
1) We need more houses
2) Nothing on new land
3) Nothing near me or mine
As an example, a new 'village' is being built slap-bang right next door to ours. I have few issues with the choice of location, or the need for the houses. But one thing that concerns me is that the current facilities are not getting much of an upgrade. As an example, the current GP surgery is poor, and the thousands of new people will be using the same surgery, with no room for growth. The library is excellent but small, and that is also not going to get any larger.
These issues are minor ones for me, but I can see why they can be of rather more concern in other developments.1 -
One reason the Tories' ratings with the working age are so dire is that they've achieved a double whammy of frustrating economic ambitions and on values. You can maybe get away with one, as some will always do alright even if the overall picture is bleak for their cohort, but not if you insult them and act against their preferences too - as people begin to blame not being better off on values, as well as competence. At the root of it is housing and poor real wage growth, but when you pile Brexit and disappearing down the 'anti-woke' rabbithole (there are legitimate criticisms of ultra-progressives, but those who decide it's their political personality are as if not more irritating), you have a recipe for two or three generations (Millennial, Gen Z, and younger Gen Xers), becoming defined as anti-Tory in their politics as have largely come of age in a period where the Conservatives are synonymous with decisions they believe have been disastrous for their prospects, and insulting to their intelligence and values. It's probably going to be a bit like the 1970s was for the Tories, in that an entire generation that came of age then was wary of Labour for life - only possibly voting for Blair as offered an explicit break with Labour's past - because became synonymous with industrial strife, inflation, a stagnant economy, and misguided radicalism.1
-
Our (rather large) back garden has lapsed planning permission to build a house on it - don't anticipate any major issues when we apply again as building houses at the back is what happens an awful lot in our village.Heathener said:Few years ago I was lucky enough to come into possession of a field on the edge of a village. It was being used as a paddock but right next door was another field where people had managed to get permission to erect a large private dwelling. Further down the lane there were more houses i.e. even more out of the village.
I put in a planning proposal to build 1 x family home for us and 2 x affordable homes (because I believe in such things). All on the lane. As I say, edge of village so not wild green field.
It was turned down 8-5 or something like that. I probably could have fought on. But this is the kind of NIMBYism that is blighting everything. Ridiculous short-sightedness.
Several other lots with planning permission for sale for rather a lot of money...0 -
Owen Jones is calling Starmer a racist on TwiXbigjohnowls said:@DavidLammy
, on
@bbclaurak
, tells Victoria Derbyshire, that Labour members should not share platforms with people who spread devisive hate.
Must have finally rumbled Luke Akehurst!
This is just one way the Gazan war could change our politics. It has a huge potential to divide the left/Labour. The right is also divided - eg Crispin Blunt - but the feuds are much less vicious and heartfelt0 -
If we get 2011 style riots, that would reduce housing supply in our cities.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
Nuclear war would have asymmetric effects - west coast (prevailing wind) properties away from cities and military bases would fetch a premium.
I plan to cycle up the A9 corridor and get to a secret bothy in the NW Highlands - I'll sketch the w3w on the door of Inverness Town House for any PBers who wish to follow. Rent starts at 100 potatoes a month.0 -
To put it politely. At the moment they need to worry about whether they are going to win this. I fear the Afghan spinners will be much more difficult to get away.BartholomewRoberts said:
England really should be looking to smash some Net Run Rate points in this game, so Afghanistan being 49-0 after 6 overs is not a promising start.DavidL said:England's opening bowlers are just not competitive enough for this world cup, Woakes especially. And then they are on to Curran, A good, enthusiastic cricketer but unlikely to scare a set bowler. They urgently need some better pace.
0 -
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country0 -
Same hereOldKingCole said:Good morning everyone!
It’s not just direct housing costs that have gone up; my household and building insurance has increased by about 30% this year. And no, I have not made a claim!
0 -
Actually I think here you're being simplistic and unimaginative at realising just how bad the housing crisis is.Leon said:
Unfortunately, it is not a distant warBartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
This is one occasion when I sincerely hope your simplistic, unimaginative view of the world is right, and my more over-excitable but good-at-extrapolating perspective is utterly wrong
Lets say that you're right and there's multiple terrorist attacks, multiple Bataclans, multiple Manchester Arena bombings that happen right here in the UK.
That would be tragic but does that actually displace housing as our countries biggest problem? No, it does not.
Millions of people have been unable to afford somewhere affordable to live for too long now. For a long time that was just renters, now its renters and those who remortgage.
Bombings are utterly tragic, but they don't affect millions of people. Housing does.0 -
Yepdarkage said:
I would go further to suggest that this conflict has the potential to change the entire discourse about multiculturalism.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories0 -
Mark Urban
@MarkUrban01
·
35m
·
An awful lot of American assets including carrier and land based aircraft heading for the eastern Mediterranean…2 -
I said the biggest issue, not the biggest polled issue.Foxy said:
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
For people who live in a house they own outright that they don't need to pay either rent or a mortgage on, of course they can then prioritise "the environment" (often code for NIMBYism to inflate their "assets") or "immigration" as an issue.
Because they don't themselves face the biggest problem in the country today.0 -
Do you think the explicit policy of no multiculturalism like France is the way to go?darkage said:
I would go further to suggest that this conflict has the potential to change the entire discourse about multiculturalism. This is because I doubt that support for Hamas and attacks on civilians as we have seen recently can be absorbed in to a multicultural society. There has to be some kind of limit.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
0 -
To put it politely, if England can't beat Afghanistan then they don't deserve to be progressing out of the group stage.DavidL said:
To put it politely. At the moment they need to worry about whether they are going to win this. I fear the Afghan spinners will be much more difficult to get away.BartholomewRoberts said:
England really should be looking to smash some Net Run Rate points in this game, so Afghanistan being 49-0 after 6 overs is not a promising start.DavidL said:England's opening bowlers are just not competitive enough for this world cup, Woakes especially. And then they are on to Curran, A good, enthusiastic cricketer but unlikely to scare a set bowler. They urgently need some better pace.
0 -
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
0 -
I am personally affected by the housing crisis - via close familyBartholomewRoberts said:
Actually I think here you're being simplistic and unimaginative at realising just how bad the housing crisis is.Leon said:
Unfortunately, it is not a distant warBartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
This is one occasion when I sincerely hope your simplistic, unimaginative view of the world is right, and my more over-excitable but good-at-extrapolating perspective is utterly wrong
Lets say that you're right and there's multiple terrorist attacks, multiple Bataclans, multiple Manchester Arena bombings that happen right here in the UK.
That would be tragic but does that actually displace housing as our countries biggest problem? No, it does not.
Millions of people have been unable to afford somewhere affordable to live for too long now. For a long time that was just renters, now its renters and those who remortgage.
Bombings are utterly tragic, but they don't affect millions of people. Housing does.
Someone REALLY needs to solve it. But it’s a chronic issue which has been with us for many years and is repeated in many countries
Civil instability with added terror is an acute issue - if it happens (ins’allah it does not)0 -
Interesting to the the shamed Tories trying to use it as a wedge issue against Labour. Sunak upping the rhetoric ante, offering Israel the government's "unqualified support in the face of evil"Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
Unqualified? That is so very wrong. Israel is going to wage war against Hamas and that is just. But it doesn't have a blank cheque to deliberately slaughter Palestinian civilians. The US have managed to get this basic point right, the UK has not.
Why? Because Jezbollah. "You supported Corbyn" is the only thing they have on Starmer and they think that trying to first provoke and then weaponise US-style equivocation will somehow turn their electoral fortunes around.1 -
"Give up Netflix or get a better job" apparentlyBartholomewRoberts said:
I said the biggest issue, not the biggest polled issue.Foxy said:
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
For people who live in a house they own outright that they don't need to pay either rent or a mortgage on, of course they can then prioritise "the environment" (often code for NIMBYism to inflate their "assets") or "immigration" as an issue.
Because they don't themselves face the biggest problem in the country today.0 -
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.1 -
It isn't the biggest issue, though obviously a hobbyhorse for you.BartholomewRoberts said:
I said the biggest issue, not the biggest polled issue.Foxy said:
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
For people who live in a house they own outright that they don't need to pay either rent or a mortgage on, of course they can then prioritise "the environment" (often code for NIMBYism to inflate their "assets") or "immigration" as an issue.
Because they don't themselves face the biggest problem in the country today.
It isn't specifically a UK issue either. Cheap, unregulated mortgages have inflated house prices everywhere. Hence crazy house prices in places like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.0 -
Quite soFoxy said:
It isn't the biggest issue, though obviously a hobbyhorse for you.BartholomewRoberts said:
I said the biggest issue, not the biggest polled issue.Foxy said:
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
For people who live in a house they own outright that they don't need to pay either rent or a mortgage on, of course they can then prioritise "the environment" (often code for NIMBYism to inflate their "assets") or "immigration" as an issue.
Because they don't themselves face the biggest problem in the country today.
It isn't specifically a UK issue either. Cheap, unregulated mortgages have inflated house prices everywhere. Hence crazy house prices in places like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.0 -
Yes. "Our friends in Labour First" is so much worse than "Our friends in Hamas"bigjohnowls said:@DavidLammy
, on
@bbclaurak
, tells Victoria Derbyshire, that Labour members should not share platforms with people who spread devisive hate.
Must have finally rumbled Luke Akehurst!
I think you and Sunak are two sides of the same coin now.1 -
CGT (or its equivalents, CTT and so on) used to be index linked, which seemed equitable to me. If I bought £20K in United Widgets shares 2 years ago, and sell them today for £23K, I'm stung for CGT on 3K* despite the fact that the value in real terms has increased by precisely zero (roughly speaking).StillWaters said:
PPR is absolutely a huge part of the problem - it encourages people to overinvest in their principal residence because the gain is tax free. It makes them think about it as an asset not a cost.BartholomewRoberts said:
The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.darkage said:
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.
We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
You need rollover relief so that people aren’t able to move to a similar property without a big hit. And I’d be fine with CPI indexation of the value to avoid people being hit by inflation if they have held an asset a long time.
*Not counting the allowance. The CGT allowance is, of course, now 3K - in reality worth less than half the previous 6K allowancew, for the same reason.0 -
Sorry but you're wrong, because you're in the incredibly privileged position of being fortunate enough to buy a house when house prices were 2.3x income and not 7x income.Foxy said:
It isn't the biggest issue, though obviously a hobbyhorse for you.BartholomewRoberts said:
I said the biggest issue, not the biggest polled issue.Foxy said:
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
For people who live in a house they own outright that they don't need to pay either rent or a mortgage on, of course they can then prioritise "the environment" (often code for NIMBYism to inflate their "assets") or "immigration" as an issue.
Because they don't themselves face the biggest problem in the country today.
It isn't specifically a UK issue either. Cheap, unregulated mortgages have inflated house prices everywhere. Hence crazy house prices in places like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Which is what I said before you responded to me and proved my point inadvertantly: The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
Are you needing to worry about paying rent or needing to worry about remortgaging?
And no cheap interest rates have not inflated house prices everywhere. In Japan base rates have been at, around or below zero for decade and yet house prices haven't been skyrocketing, because supply has kept up with demand.0 -
These small pictures are annoying. Especially if they contain text.
You have to copy the url and open in a new window to expand and by then the immediate point is lost.0 -
SKS and Sunak are wrongBartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
https://twitter.com/RedCollectiveUK/status/17132924004523380270 -
No, they're not. War is hell, but war needs fighting. Blame Hamas for those children's deaths, they're the ones who caused it and they're the ones using children as human shields which is the real war crime.bigjohnowls said:
SKS and Sunak are wrongBartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
https://twitter.com/RedCollectiveUK/status/17132924004523380271 -
Even if you’re right about international law (and I’ll set that aside for now) - the spectacle of Israel wading into Gaza to exterminate Hamas - and killing thousands of innocent Gazans as it goes - is going to violently inflame passions. Particularly in Muslim communities in the west - as the west is seen to support IsraelBartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
That means terror attacks. Attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses. Civil unrest perhaps. It could get REALLY ugly, and the attackers won’t care about “international law”0 -
England need this match to take 80 overs, so that half the audience doesn’t switch off to watch the rugby. Fewer arguments in pubs everywhere as well!BartholomewRoberts said:
England really should be looking to smash some Net Run Rate points in this game, so Afghanistan being 49-0 after 6 overs is not a promising start.DavidL said:England's opening bowlers are just not competitive enough for this world cup, Woakes especially. And then they are on to Curran, A good, enthusiastic cricketer but unlikely to scare a set bowler. They urgently need some better pace.
0 -
It would be nice if the mods could explain why this has happened, and whether anything can be done about itgeoffw said:These small pictures are annoying. Especially if they contain text.
You have to copy the url and open in a new window to expand and by then the immediate point is lost.0 -
Get an iPad, 2 fingers sorts it out.geoffw said:These small pictures are annoying. Especially if they contain text.
You have to copy the url and open in a new window to expand and by then the immediate point is lost.
That’s to expand the image on screen, not advice on gestures.
0 -
Was the bombing of the refugee corridor in Gaza yesterday down to the Israelis or was it a false flag by Hamas?0
-
That tosser you just linked to posted this as a response to someone downthread: "there is no evidence that the Palestinian government are murdering children"bigjohnowls said:
SKS and Sunak are wrongBartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
https://twitter.com/RedCollectiveUK/status/1713292400452338027
Hamas are the Palestinian government. Hamas have committed unspeakable acts of barbarity in this war to *provoke* Israel to respond. And you back this tosser's opinion? Why am I not surprised.1 -
Roughly down the same lines as South Africa. The Tory right gung ho in their support of the apartheid government. The Thatchers had significant interests there-Hang Mandela T-Shirts at conference etc. The left much more circumspect. It was a huge dividing line and depending what happens in the next few weeks this could have a similar significance.Leon said:
Owen Jones is calling Starmer a racist on TwiXbigjohnowls said:@DavidLammy
, on
@bbclaurak
, tells Victoria Derbyshire, that Labour members should not share platforms with people who spread devisive hate.
Must have finally rumbled Luke Akehurst!
This is just one way the Gazan war could change our politics. It has a huge potential to divide the left/Labour. The right is also divided - eg Crispin Blunt - but the feuds are much less vicious and heartfelt0 -
I suppose that will depend how long it takes for Afghanistan to bowl them out with huge scoreboard pressure. England are in serious trouble here. I don't understand why Wood was not given the new ball.Sandpit said:
England need this match to take 80 overs, so that half the audience doesn’t switch off to watch the rugby. Fewer arguments in pubs everywhere as well!BartholomewRoberts said:
England really should be looking to smash some Net Run Rate points in this game, so Afghanistan being 49-0 after 6 overs is not a promising start.DavidL said:England's opening bowlers are just not competitive enough for this world cup, Woakes especially. And then they are on to Curran, A good, enthusiastic cricketer but unlikely to scare a set bowler. They urgently need some better pace.
1 -
The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.2
-
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.BartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.1 -
I would ask what is wrong with the hard left. But we know the answer. Note that RedCollectiveUK - who denies the medieval butchery and slaughter of Israeli children both born and unborn by Hamas this last week - links to "thecorbynproject" on his Twitter header.
From the River to the Sea (the Thames to the Irish Sea) the cesspit of hard left anti-semitism continues to fizzle away. Happily now completely removed from any influence in the Labour Party.
4 -
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.Theuniondivvie said:
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.BartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...1 -
You and Phil support Genocide why am i not surprisedRochdalePioneers said:
That tosser you just linked to posted this as a response to someone downthread: "there is no evidence that the Palestinian government are murdering children"bigjohnowls said:
SKS and Sunak are wrongBartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
https://twitter.com/RedCollectiveUK/status/1713292400452338027
Hamas are the Palestinian government. Hamas have committed unspeakable acts of barbarity in this war to *provoke* Israel to respond. And you back this tosser's opinion? Why am I not surprised.-1 -
Needing a 10% deposit has been pretty consistent over the years, apart from disreputable lenders and that's then when people get into real problems.twistedfirestopper3 said:The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.
Which is why the young have been priced out of houses for decades, because if you want 10% of 7x income then that's 70% of your annual income expected as a deposit. And as house prices have gone up faster than wages for decades, that has been expanding and expanding in unaffordability.
Of course those ignorant and fortunate enough to have bought their own home at 2.3x income, when only 23% of income was expected as a deposit, don't see what the problem is. Their ignorance, doesn't make the problem less real.
Thankfully now the problem is getting corrected.0 -
England are trying to use Wood in the way they used Plunkett in the previous WC. They wish to use his extra pace in an "enforcer" role after the powerplay, when the ball has little movement off the pitch / through the air and when a bowler with lesser pace becomes easy to hit. Also, with the new ball, it goes quickly to the boundary, with more men required in the circle, the danger his the extra pace means chances of many boundaries.DavidL said:
I suppose that will depend how long it takes for Afghanistan to bowl them out with huge scoreboard pressure. England are in serious trouble here. I don't understand why Wood was not given the new ball.Sandpit said:
England need this match to take 80 overs, so that half the audience doesn’t switch off to watch the rugby. Fewer arguments in pubs everywhere as well!BartholomewRoberts said:
England really should be looking to smash some Net Run Rate points in this game, so Afghanistan being 49-0 after 6 overs is not a promising start.DavidL said:England's opening bowlers are just not competitive enough for this world cup, Woakes especially. And then they are on to Curran, A good, enthusiastic cricketer but unlikely to scare a set bowler. They urgently need some better pace.
The idea is to mix his ultra pace with the spin from the other end.0 -
thanks for the two finger advice. That works on my MacBook too, but the point still stands - having to do that interrupts the flow and detracts from comprehensionTheuniondivvie said:
Get an iPad, 2 fingers sorts it out.geoffw said:These small pictures are annoying. Especially if they contain text.
You have to copy the url and open in a new window to expand and by then the immediate point is lost.
That’s to expand the image on screen, not advice on gestures.
0 -
The safe way to do that is to get planning, do the minimum to establish Development Has Started, then stop and get written confirmation of start of development - you then can take decades to finish it having locked it in against expiry of the Planning Permissions. Usually a soakaway or forming the access may be enough in Scotland, where I think you are. Pre-start planning conditions need attention.RochdalePioneers said:
Our (rather large) back garden has lapsed planning permission to build a house on it - don't anticipate any major issues when we apply again as building houses at the back is what happens an awful lot in our village.Heathener said:Few years ago I was lucky enough to come into possession of a field on the edge of a village. It was being used as a paddock but right next door was another field where people had managed to get permission to erect a large private dwelling. Further down the lane there were more houses i.e. even more out of the village.
I put in a planning proposal to build 1 x family home for us and 2 x affordable homes (because I believe in such things). All on the lane. As I say, edge of village so not wild green field.
It was turned down 8-5 or something like that. I probably could have fought on. But this is the kind of NIMBYism that is blighting everything. Ridiculous short-sightedness.
Several other lots with planning permission for sale for rather a lot of money...
Scotland has been tightening up at the edges - for example in open countryside, but is still far more liberal than England.2 -
Back onto voting, I'm (sadly) just inside the boundaries of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, which means the lickspittle David Duguid. I'm not voting Tory (for the party or for him), I'm not voting SNP for more corruption. So I am voting LibDem with a clear conscience.
I may not be able to remove the Tory from power, but at least I get to watch him politically neutered on the opposition benches, whining as he does with no ability to stick his tongue up the PMs arse in thanks for not supporting this community.0 -
Or Rightclick menu on the image.geoffw said:
thanks for the two finger advice. That works on my MacBook too, but the point still stands - having to do that interrupts the flow and detracts from comprehensionTheuniondivvie said:
Get an iPad, 2 fingers sorts it out.geoffw said:These small pictures are annoying. Especially if they contain text.
You have to copy the url and open in a new window to expand and by then the immediate point is lost.
That’s to expand the image on screen, not advice on gestures.0 -
Anyone who buys a caravan or lodge on a holiday park is a Mug, taking a big big risk.twistedfirestopper3 said:.
We briefly toyed with the idea of buying a luxury lodge home near Swannage. Bloody lovely, great location, close to the beach. Until I researched it. 300k for a glorified park home with 8 grand a year fees and you don't own the land. I think the actual lodge itself was only about 75k to buy brand new from the manufacturer anyway. No ta!RochdalePioneers said:
Can we please drop this myth than you can "own" an apartment? Do you own the land? Or the building? No, you are buying a yale key.kyf_100 said:
Dunno if you have FT access, but the figures here are startling:MattW said:
I'd basically agree with those (though leasehold flats do seem to sell), and add some more to reform the market further, plus generate greater availability in places to build and places to live.kyf_100 said:Build more houses.
Abolish leasehold - you'll never get people to buy flats until you do.
Stop propping up the market with stamp duty holidays, "help to buy" etc which only inflates the market.
Servicing the cost of putting a roof over your head destroys disposable income, destroys investment, sucks all the money out of the economy and gives it over to rent-seeking parasites, instead of being invested in productive capital.
It really is that simple.
I think Mr Starmer has quite a lot of that about right, but it will take longer than he hopes. It always does. His goals seem reasonably modest, which will help. I predict that little will seem to be achieved in 1-2 years, but more than expected in 5-7 years. He needs 2 terms.
I also note from the 2021-22 English Housing Survey:
1.83 The overall rate of under-occupation in England in 2021-22 was 39% with around 9.3 million households living in under-occupied homes (i.e. with two or more spare bedrooms), Annex Table 1.25.
1.84 Under-occupation was much more prevalent among owner occupiers than in the rented sectors. Over half (53%) of owner occupied households (8.3 million households) were under-occupied in 2021-22 compared with 15% of private rented (684,000) and 10% of social rented (408,000) households.
1.85 The overall proportion of under-occupied households among owner occupiers in England increased between 2011-12 and 2021-22 from 49% (7.0 million households) to 53% (8.3 million households). No change was seen among renters over the same time period,
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report
So I'd seek to promote lodgers more, and eg encourage people with Pieds a Terre flats to take a weekday lodging rather than taking up a whole flat, for example.
https://www.ft.com/content/df25ccc7-5dcf-446e-8a07-332ad5612f09
Everywhere else in the world, the value of flats has broadly kept up with the value of housing. Except the UK. Grenfell exposed the flaws in the leasehold system, left tons of people with unmanageable bills, "waking watch" (i.e. pay nine grand a year for someone to sit in reception on their phone "just in case" of a fire) etc.
Buy houses, rent apartments.
The well known names are the worst offenders.0 -
For those of us of a certain age 6% mortgage rates are not high. My first mortgage rate was a whisker under 10% and it often went higher in the turmoil of late 80 and early 90s. Didn't stop housing being a good investment. We have just got far too used to incredibly low rates for too long. It caused a lot of very unhealthy distortions, benefiting those with assets and penalising those trying to build assets from heavily taxed income.twistedfirestopper3 said:The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.
3 -
Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/0 -
By way of a change, Sunday PBNature Notes (and, come to think of it, PB Engineering Column for @JosiasJessop ): through the plashy fen passes the questing Mitten Crab.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/14/scientists-build-traps-to-manage-uks-rising-number-of-chinese-mitten-crabs
'It is classified by conservationists as one of the 100 worst invasive alien species in the world. Now, a group of scientists are hoping they have found a way to deplete the UK’s rapidly growing Chinese mitten crab population and prevent the crustaceans, which can grow bigger than a 10-inch dinner plate and have distinctive furry claws, from “eating us out of house and home”.
The group has constructed and installed the UK’s first Chinese mitten crab trap at Pode Hole in Lincolnshire, to catch the voracious predators as they migrate downstream to mate'.1 -
Come on @DavidL, 6% now is harder than 10% back in the day due to general appreciation of the capital cost ahead of inflation.DavidL said:
For those of us of a certain age 6% mortgage rates are not high. My first mortgage rate was a whisker under 10% and it often went higher in the turmoil of late 80 and early 90s. Didn't stop housing being a good investment. We have just got far too used to incredibly low rates for too long. It caused a lot of very unhealthy distortions, benefiting those with assets and penalising those trying to build assets from heavily taxed income.twistedfirestopper3 said:The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.
2 -
We do not. If you read what we have posted.bigjohnowls said:
You and Phil support Genocide why am i not surprisedRochdalePioneers said:
That tosser you just linked to posted this as a response to someone downthread: "there is no evidence that the Palestinian government are murdering children"bigjohnowls said:
SKS and Sunak are wrongBartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
https://twitter.com/RedCollectiveUK/status/1713292400452338027
Hamas are the Palestinian government. Hamas have committed unspeakable acts of barbarity in this war to *provoke* Israel to respond. And you back this tosser's opinion? Why am I not surprised.
But you have posted your support for a man who states that "there is no evidence that the Palestinian government are murdering children"
There is plenty of evidence that Hamas - the elected government in Palestine, and in absolute control in Gaza - has not just murdered children but has dismembered them. Absolute brutal facts which your man is in denial of.
If that TikTok clip is real (and I have to ask as they has been so much false flag crap as all the journalists will tell you) then it is appalling. And more appalling things are going to happen as a result of something you deny happened.
Why do you only value the lives on one side? Do you also deny that Hamas has slaughtered children? And that Hamas in the government? Or do you just blindly link to any hard left poster and don't think?1 -
The problem is 5% is roughly the historic norm, for good reason i.e. you need that level of interest for it to make the whole system work, whereby a profit can be made on loaning out reasonable amounts of money when you take into consider defaults, cost of administering it etc.DavidL said:
For those of us of a certain age 6% mortgage rates are not high. My first mortgage rate was a whisker under 10% and it often went higher in the turmoil of late 80 and early 90s. Didn't stop housing being a good investment. We have just got far too used to incredibly low rates for too long. It caused a lot of very unhealthy distortions, benefiting those with assets and penalising those trying to build assets from heavily taxed income.twistedfirestopper3 said:The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.
However, we now have a generation of people who have never had to organise their lives around such rates, they themselves and the market have created a system based upon unrealistically low interest rates, forcing prices / amount need to be taken on on a mortgage, encouraging banks to loan as much as possible in order to make returns.
And again, the oldies have done the best out of this, as they bought their homes for (relatively) small amount, paid off the mortgage during the past 30 years (15+ year of which the rates were very low) and now left with a big capital appreciation.3 -
When I see not one but two carrier groups reverse parking into the Eastern Med, I get the feels that Biden is getting better advice than in 2021/2022. Whereas then he told Putin “well it depends what sort of invasion it is”, there is now an unambiguous message to the Iranians of “don’t even think about it”.Leon said:
Unfortunately, it is not a distant warBartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
This is one occasion when I sincerely hope your simplistic, unimaginative view of the world is right, and my more over-excitable but good-at-extrapolating perspective is utterly wrong
Deterrence is more effective and less costly the sooner you apply it. For poor Ukraine, the West was utterly wretched because deterrence wasn’t even attempted ex ante. If the House Republicans had any sense, they’d be forcing a budgetary deal that permits Biden to keep playing silly buggers with the Ira but compels him to build another few carrier groups for permanent deployment to the South China Sea.
0 -
.
I bought my first house house in '87, so remember it well. Try telling today's young 'uns that they've never had it so good!DavidL said:
For those of us of a certain age 6% mortgage rates are not high. My first mortgage rate was a whisker under 10% and it often went higher in the turmoil of late 80 and early 90s. Didn't stop housing being a good investment. We have just got far too used to incredibly low rates for too long. It caused a lot of very unhealthy distortions, benefiting those with assets and penalising those trying to build assets from heavily taxed income.twistedfirestopper3 said:The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.
0 -
Depends on how big the bombs are doesn’t itBartholomewRoberts said:
Bombings are utterly tragic, but they don't affect millions of people. Housing does.Leon said:
Unfortunately, it is not a distant warBartholomewRoberts said:
No, it really doesn't.Leon said:The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
This is one occasion when I sincerely hope your simplistic, unimaginative view of the world is right, and my more over-excitable but good-at-extrapolating perspective is utterly wrong
0 -
House prices are still higher than they were five years ago, and wages are higher than they were five years ago.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/
And even with most of the first five years repayments being interest, some capital should have been repaid by now too.
So anyone who bought five years ago, and has been making repayments, really ought to be better placed able to keep paying for their home now than going back to renting. Unless for some reason they were very badly advised and went for an interest-only loan when interest rates were near-zero.0 -
Topley knee blown up....this is really bad day for England.1
-
Hopefully then house prices go back to the levels they were at in the early 90s too.DavidL said:
For those of us of a certain age 6% mortgage rates are not high. My first mortgage rate was a whisker under 10% and it often went higher in the turmoil of late 80 and early 90s. Didn't stop housing being a good investment. We have just got far too used to incredibly low rates for too long. It caused a lot of very unhealthy distortions, benefiting those with assets and penalising those trying to build assets from heavily taxed income.twistedfirestopper3 said:The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.
1 -
...0
-
Nearly 94,000 homeowners who purchased using Help to Buy have not yet repaid their equity loans and will come to the end of their interest-free periods between April 2023 and 2025, according to Telegraph analysis of Homes England data.BartholomewRoberts said:
House prices are still higher than they were five years ago, and wages are higher than they were five years ago.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/
And even with most of the first five years repayments being interest, some capital should have been repaid by now too.
So anyone who bought five years ago, and has been making repayments, really ought to be better placed able to keep paying for their home now than going back to renting. Unless for some reason they were very badly advised and went for an interest-only loan when interest rates were near-zero.
Within this group, there are around 11,000 first-time buyers who purchased in London and will have to start paying interest on 40pc equity loans.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/12/help-buy-scheme-first-time-buyers-downsize/
It was an interest free for 5 years, so lots of people haven't repaid it, thinking they would just re-mortgage at the end of the 5 years with their house worth a lot more and pay off the lump sum on that loan.0 -
One of ours didn’t go to Uni; accountancy qualification plus marriage. The other two went as ‘adults’ having worked for five years. One had already left home, the other left almost immediately after university.MattW said:
You need to downsize when they are at university, to remove the "Right of Return".OldKingCole said:
We did something like that on retirement; sold a four bedroomed house and moved into a smaller bungalow. At the time we had one married ‘child’ and two teenage grandchildren, so seemed like a good idea.pm215 said:
How do you propose to do this without it being perceived as (or actually being) another massive bung to the elderly?Sandpit said:
Incentivise people to trade down once their kids have flown the nest, to leave larger houses for growing families.
Unclear how many would take it, anyway, if they haven't already been drawn by the cashback inherent in downsizing. I know somebody who now lives alone in what was once the family five bedroom house -- but when the kids and grandkids are back for Christmas or Easter the house is full. I'm not sure they'd be very keen to give that up.
Five or six years later our other children, both in their thirties, had married and both had become fathers! Hosting everyone is impossible!
Fortunately one of our children had a similar house to that which we sold!
Of course things have moved on further now!0 -
We're going to lose to both Afghanistan and Fiji today.FrancisUrquhart said:Topley knee blown up....this is really bad day for England.
The shame.
Edit - I am claiming that wicket.1 -
If a person's advantage is dependent on them not understanding a truth, then they will refuse to understand it.Benpointer said:On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
2 -
Mortgage arrears are the next crisis in waiting.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/
https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/data-and-research/data/arrears-and-possessions0 -
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"Eabhal said:
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.Theuniondivvie said:
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.BartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children.
2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire.
3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!0 -
IMO, Topley has been England's best ODI / T20 bowler over the past couple of years.0
-
Should have been named help to sell. It was not created to help buyers.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/3 -
You mean people are having to borrow more on higher multiples that we did 40 years ago? That is true but it is a consequence of the distortions caused by excessively low interest rates. There will have to be a market correction, hopefully largely effected by housing not keeping up with inflation rather than negative equity driving absolute falls.Pulpstar said:
Come on @DavidL, 6% now is harder than 10% back in the day due to general appreciation of the capital cost ahead of inflation.DavidL said:
For those of us of a certain age 6% mortgage rates are not high. My first mortgage rate was a whisker under 10% and it often went higher in the turmoil of late 80 and early 90s. Didn't stop housing being a good investment. We have just got far too used to incredibly low rates for too long. It caused a lot of very unhealthy distortions, benefiting those with assets and penalising those trying to build assets from heavily taxed income.twistedfirestopper3 said:The person on the average wage can't afford to buy the averaged priced house. Mortgage affordability is also a key issue. On low mortgage interest rates, you can borrow more money to buy that averagely priced house. Now the rates are at 6% ish, you can't borrow as much so need a bigger deposit. Prices will have to come down if rates are to stay high.
0 -
Well it also seems that what happened was those naughty scamps that build starter homes just put up their prices.Taz said:
Should have been named help to sell. It was not created to help buyers.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/1 -
Finally a wicket!0
-
And don't forget that the 22% includes people like me, divorced in their 50s using what's left of the equity of the family home after dividing the proceeds. Not necessarily "single" people in the way we might picture them in our minds at first.MattW said:
In 2022 only 22% of purchases with a mortgage involved a single adult (ie single man, single woman or lone parent with dependent children).eek said:
Not if prices are at 5-7 times anverage earnings they won’t.EPG said:In broad terms, people who were 25-35 used to be more likely to be married, have an extra five years' work under their belts, and maybe even got handed a council house by the government at a significant discount. That's not replicable. More single under-35s equals more renters, it really is that simple, but they will eventually buy once they settle.
I'm surprised it's that low. Though that arguably itself says things about pressure on those demographic groups.
Even if adults with independent children are included, it is still under 40%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/286481/england-buying-with-mortgage-ownership-by-household-type/0 -
I am not liking the England line-up for the England. I fear Marcus Smith at full-back might be getting the Jonah Lomu treatment.TheScreamingEagles said:
We're going to lose to both Afghanistan and Fiji today.FrancisUrquhart said:Topley knee blown up....this is really bad day for England.
The shame.
Edit - I am claiming that wicket.0 -
Yes, but everything I said is still true.FrancisUrquhart said:
Nearly 94,000 homeowners who purchased using Help to Buy have not yet repaid their equity loans and will come to the end of their interest-free periods between April 2023 and 2025, according to Telegraph analysis of Homes England data.BartholomewRoberts said:
House prices are still higher than they were five years ago, and wages are higher than they were five years ago.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/
And even with most of the first five years repayments being interest, some capital should have been repaid by now too.
So anyone who bought five years ago, and has been making repayments, really ought to be better placed able to keep paying for their home now than going back to renting. Unless for some reason they were very badly advised and went for an interest-only loan when interest rates were near-zero.
Within this group, there are around 11,000 first-time buyers who purchased in London and will have to start paying interest on 40pc equity loans.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/12/help-buy-scheme-first-time-buyers-downsize/
It was an interest free for 5 years, so lots of people haven't repaid it, thinking they would just re-mortgage at the end of the 5 years with their house worth a lot more and pay off the lump sum on that loan.
House prices are still higher than they were 5 years ago (ideally not for much longer, but they are and massively so).
Wages are higher in nominal terms than they were 5 years ago.
And they should have been repaying some of their capital on some of the loan too.
If someone bought a home at 7x their income five years ago, it should realistically be down to ~5x their income by now and be cheaper than renting or getting a home now would be.
Getting onto the ladder is the harder thing than staying on it.0 -
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.BartholomewRoberts said:
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"Eabhal said:
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.Theuniondivvie said:
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.BartholomewRoberts said:
Again do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:
More LammynatingTheuniondivvie said:
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you disagree?Theuniondivvie said:The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
War is ugly.
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children.
2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire.
3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!0 -
The crucial thing is many haven't, in fact I think many were advised not to.BartholomewRoberts said:
Yes, but everything I said is still true.FrancisUrquhart said:
Nearly 94,000 homeowners who purchased using Help to Buy have not yet repaid their equity loans and will come to the end of their interest-free periods between April 2023 and 2025, according to Telegraph analysis of Homes England data.BartholomewRoberts said:
House prices are still higher than they were five years ago, and wages are higher than they were five years ago.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/
And even with most of the first five years repayments being interest, some capital should have been repaid by now too.
So anyone who bought five years ago, and has been making repayments, really ought to be better placed able to keep paying for their home now than going back to renting. Unless for some reason they were very badly advised and went for an interest-only loan when interest rates were near-zero.
Within this group, there are around 11,000 first-time buyers who purchased in London and will have to start paying interest on 40pc equity loans.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/12/help-buy-scheme-first-time-buyers-downsize/
It was an interest free for 5 years, so lots of people haven't repaid it, thinking they would just re-mortgage at the end of the 5 years with their house worth a lot more and pay off the lump sum on that loan.
House prices are still higher than they were 5 years ago (ideally not for much longer, but they are and massively so).
Wages are higher in nominal terms than they were 5 years ago.
And they should have been repaying some of their capital on some of the loan too.
If someone bought a home at 7x their income five years ago, it should realistically be down to ~5x their income by now and be cheaper than renting or getting a home now would be.
Getting onto the ladder is the harder thing than staying on it.0 -
The difference is that banks were funding 6x income five years ago, and aren’t doing so now.BartholomewRoberts said:
Yes, but everything I said is still true.FrancisUrquhart said:
Nearly 94,000 homeowners who purchased using Help to Buy have not yet repaid their equity loans and will come to the end of their interest-free periods between April 2023 and 2025, according to Telegraph analysis of Homes England data.BartholomewRoberts said:
House prices are still higher than they were five years ago, and wages are higher than they were five years ago.FrancisUrquhart said:Osborne's Help to Buy scheme is also in danger of blowing up....
Thousands of first-time buyers are now in arrears after purchasing their homes with Help to Buy, The Telegraph can reveal.
In some cases, buyers have faced mortgage and interest charges that are so unaffordable they have had to sell up and rent again, five years into the scheme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/first-time-buyers-forced-sell-up-unaffordable-help-to-buy/
And even with most of the first five years repayments being interest, some capital should have been repaid by now too.
So anyone who bought five years ago, and has been making repayments, really ought to be better placed able to keep paying for their home now than going back to renting. Unless for some reason they were very badly advised and went for an interest-only loan when interest rates were near-zero.
Within this group, there are around 11,000 first-time buyers who purchased in London and will have to start paying interest on 40pc equity loans.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/12/help-buy-scheme-first-time-buyers-downsize/
It was an interest free for 5 years, so lots of people haven't repaid it, thinking they would just re-mortgage at the end of the 5 years with their house worth a lot more and pay off the lump sum on that loan.
House prices are still higher than they were 5 years ago (ideally not for much longer, but they are and massively so).
Wages are higher in nominal terms than they were 5 years ago.
And they should have been repaying some of their capital on some of the loan too.
If someone bought a home at 7x their income five years ago, it should realistically be down to ~5x their income by now and be cheaper than renting or getting a home now would be.
Getting onto the ladder is the harder thing than staying on it.0
