I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
In the south east of England and London, we just need to build, build, build.
More flats in urban locations. More houses where there is space. Expand existing towns. Create new towns with transport links. Build the infrastructure that comes with it.
Some of these will be quicker than others to implement but we shouldn't be aiming to just catch up on previous underinvestment, we should look forward to future growth in demand.
Other areas of the country I know less well, but the principle is one of demand led construction. If prices are high, it's a sign demand is high and builders should want to build if permitted.
I totally endorse this.
If Labour don't do it, the Conservatives will eventually be forced into advocating it.
If Starmer stabilises house prices for a decade or so he'll be doing the next generation a massive service.
The toleration of degraded arts is how we got from classical columns to brutalist eyesores.
Anyway, I must be off. Hope some of you got nice odds on Harris (I was offline when the news broke but can't complain, I've benefited a lot from breaking news with F1 and some political stuff in the past).
Will Bailey "injuries that still affect me to this day".
With any luck maybe this will lead the BBC to cancel it and have to come up with something original.
Yes, let's ban this show-that-I-don't-like-but-lots-of-people-really-seem-to-enjoy.
Absolutely. I cannot stand Strictly but millions love it.
Yes, I am ambivalent but Mr's P. is a fan.
What drives people to call for something that other people enjoy to be banned, even if they themselves are not forced to watch it?
People appear to have (re)discovered that to train hard to perform at a high standards, your coach sometimes needs to be mean to you and you might get injured. I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Australia's "negative gearing" malarkey is fucking bonkers.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
It's a goddamn cartel. They only build as many houses that they can sell at the prices they want to sell them at. To be fair, they're not responsible for housing the population, they're just a business that is only interested in keeping the shareholders rich. No government is going to change that.
The toleration of degraded arts is how we got from classical columns to brutalist eyesores.
Anyway, I must be off. Hope some of you got nice odds on Harris (I was offline when the news broke but can't complain, I've benefited a lot from breaking news with F1 and some political stuff in the past).
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
It's a goddamn cartel. They only build as many houses that they can sell at the prices they want to sell them at. To be fair, they're not responsible for housing the population, they're just a business that is only interested in keeping the shareholders rich. No government is going to change that.
Yup. As ever, the answer to a broken market is the think about barriers to entry. But no one is doing that, and to be fair the shortage of trained workers probably precludes it. A “construction work visa” and some thinking about barriers to entry is where I’d be thinking.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
It's a goddamn cartel. They only build as many houses that they can sell at the prices they want to sell them at. To be fair, they're not responsible for housing the population, they're just a business that is only interested in keeping the shareholders rich. No government is going to change that.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
But this is not a market where there is only new supply. The housebuilders can't rig a market where 90% of the supply is outside their hands.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
The UK housing market has vast numbers of independent private buyers buying from vast numbers of independent sellers.
Even if the new houses were all controlled by a cartel, which sounds like bollocks, people moving into new houses would still free up old houses which the cartel didn't control, so you'd still see the increased supply reducing prices.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
It's a goddamn cartel. They only build as many houses that they can sell at the prices they want to sell them at. To be fair, they're not responsible for housing the population, they're just a business that is only interested in keeping the shareholders rich. No government is going to change that.
Prices round here are low compared to the nationwide average.
There's tons of new estates going up near me as well. They still only build what they want to build. If I remember rightly, a group of the big builders are under investigation for price fixing and colluding to keep prices up. I'm at A&E still, so on limited Internet and can't supply a link!
Be interesting to see what the tweets said and if he transgressed from fair criticism to something else.
That drumming up controversy to get grow his podcast has rather backfired. He was done in civil court by Jeremy Vine, which cost him a pretty penny and Aluko is also taking him to court. He was incredibly rude about both, and his nickname for Vine, I can understand why Vine took him to court. I can think of one tweet that was two footed challenge on Aluko, but it wasn't racist, it was a Jimmy Carr style jibe. However, if this is the bar for malicious communication, I think half of twitter better be ready for a knock at the door from the police.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
Erhhh......Canada is because 80-90% of the population have to live within 100 miles of basically 3-4 major cities for work and they have had huge immigration over the past 10 years that has put massive pressure on the demand side.
Australia, doing buy to let is like here, but on steroids. Taxes on the upper middle class are very high, but you can gain massive tax advantages if you own buy to lets. It so huge you would be an absolute moron not to, basically every upper middle class person owns multiple units because it is so tax advantageous to do so.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
Not sure about this logic. All else held equal, more houses must mean prices drop. However:
1) The demand curve for housing in our cities is shallow. That means that more houses only had a marginal impact on prices. They remain unaffordable for most first time buyers. I reckon this is why renting has exploded over the last 10 years.
2) Developers are motivated by profit, not by housing as many people as possible. That's why you get thousands of detached houses with garages and (minute) gardens, rather than tenements and communal facilities as in the past.
3) Building houses around towns and in the countryside makes next to zero difference to the market in the cities (where young people live and study). The country desperately needs a towns strategy to make these smaller settlements more attractive for employers and young people.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
It's a goddamn cartel. They only build as many houses that they can sell at the prices they want to sell them at. To be fair, they're not responsible for housing the population, they're just a business that is only interested in keeping the shareholders rich. No government is going to change that.
During the 30s, the volume housebuilders built in such volumes that pretty much anyone who wanted to own a house, could. That wasn't because they weren't interested in running businesses. It was because it was profitable for them to build in huge numbers such that supply caught up with demand.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
The UK housing market has vast numbers of independent private buyers buying from vast numbers of independent sellers.
Even if the new houses were all controlled by a cartel, which sounds like bollocks, people moving into new houses would still free up old houses which the cartel didn't control, so you'd still see the increased supply reducing prices.
You would get an artificially constrained supply, right? So those who control the new supply and the pricing of it will effectively control the market price of a house.
If potatoes were too expensive, and there was a national chip shortage crisis, nobody would suggest a government "help to buy a bag of chips" subsidy, or shared social chips schemes, or targetting chips at certain parts of the population, or just eating other root vegetables for a decade until you can save up for some chips.
WE'D PLANT AND GROW MORE BLOODY POTATOES!
The impending spike in potato and chip prices is due to shit weather and will last at least twelve months. That’s twelve months if we have better weather next year as well, else make it 24.
Be interesting to see what the tweets said and if he transgressed from fair criticism to something else.
That drumming up controversy to get grow his podcast has rather backfired. He was done in civil court by Jeremy Vine, which cost him a pretty penny and Aluko is also taking him to court. He was incredibly rude about both, and his nickname for Vine, I can understand why Vine took him to court. I can think of one tweet that was two footed challenge on Aluko, but it wasn't racist, it was a Jimmy Carr style jibe. However, if this is the bar for malicious communication, I think half of twitter better be ready for a knock at the door from the police.
There was a really interesting post upthread about ex women's footballers having a more up to date appreciation of the modern men's game than men who are too long out of the game. I think it goes to the heart of what we want from the pundits on sports programmes. Arguably I think you want people able to give insight beyond what the man/woman in the pub/lounge has. Why are certain things happening? How could it be countered etc. It shouldn't matter who that person is if they have the knowledge and the ability to impart it. Where I have had a minor problem is with ex-players speaking of things that they don't know about. This includes female ex-players talking about the experience of men's football. Until recently women's football was tiny and there was a world of difference playing for Arsenal men's team in the Premiership vs the women's team. That is changing now, but I can understand how some male ex-players looked at the women and thought 'what do you now about the men's game"? The same applies in reverse. A male ex-pro doesn't understand the experience of a women playing top flight football.
So if your pundit is to be someone who has been there, done it, then perhaps a female ex-player isn't the best fit for the men's game, and an male ex-player isn't a good fit to talk about what its like to actually win an international tournament.
But if the pundit is there because they understand the modern game - it shouldn't matter who they are. Barton seems to be stuck in the mentality of only ex-pro's like him should be pundits. He couldn't be more wrong.
Labour could have been bolder. They went for Great British Energy. They should have gone for Great British Housebuilding as well, with the stated aim of overriding all the housing blockages, including planning and the power of the construction cartels, to build high-quality housing (including social housing). (No, I haven't worked out how it would operate in practice, before anyone asks).
If potatoes were too expensive, and there was a national chip shortage crisis, nobody would suggest a government "help to buy a bag of chips" subsidy, or shared social chips schemes, or targetting chips at certain parts of the population, or just eating other root vegetables for a decade until you can save up for some chips.
WE'D PLANT AND GROW MORE BLOODY POTATOES!
The impending spike in potato and chip prices is due to shit weather and will last at least twelve months. That’s twelve months if we have better weather next year as well, else make it 24.
Then there is the collapse of the spaghetti harvest....
Edit: And the mining disaster that shut the largest flaked parmesan mines.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
Erhhh......Canada is because 80-90% of the population have to live within 100 miles of basically 3-4 major cities for work and they have had huge immigration over the past 10 years that has put massive pressure on the demand side.
Australia, doing buy to let is like here, but on steroids. Taxes on the upper middle class are very high, but you can gain massive tax advantages if you own buy to lets. It so huge you would be an absolute moron not to, basically every upper middle class person owns multiple units because it is so tax advantageous to do so.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
Erhhh......Canada is because 80-90% of the population have to live within 100 miles of basically 3-4 major cities for work and they have had huge immigration over the past 10 years that has put massive pressure on the demand side.
Australia, doing buy to let is like here, but on steroids. Taxes on the upper middle class are very high, but you can gain massive tax advantages if you own buy to lets. It so huge you would be an absolute moron not to, basically every upper middle class person owns multiple units because it is so tax advantageous to do so.
I was talking about the UK but the point is generally true. Both lack of supply and low interest rates will tend to inflate property prices.
I think its valid to look at the fact Canada and Australia also didn't really suffer the huge economic downturn after 2008. But Canada's population is up 1/3 in 20 years, and although a massive country, and basically all the jobs (outside of oil) are in Vancouver and Toronto, so it has put enormous demand on the system . And as I say, Australia tax system is bonkers, if you earn more than a certain amount, you literally setting money alight if you don't go out and buy a house to let out.
a) that assumes she wins the single electoral vote from Nebraska. Biden won it: Hillary didn’t. If she doesn’t, it’s contingent election time on 269-269.
b) 270 EVs isn’t a great number to be sitting on because all it takes is one faithless elector to throw the whole thing into chaos. Which they could do with avoiding.
So it would be helpful if she could also grab one of NV/AZ/GA/NC too. GA and NC looked beyond reach for Biden, and unless Harris makes big inroads there then they will likely be out of play. The others are not easy, but she has time to make a play for them.
Be interesting to see what the tweets said and if he transgressed from fair criticism to something else.
That drumming up controversy to get grow his podcast has rather backfired. He was done in civil court by Jeremy Vine, which cost him a pretty penny and Aluko is also taking him to court. He was incredibly rude about both, and his nickname for Vine, I can understand why Vine took him to court. I can think of one tweet that was two footed challenge on Aluko, but it wasn't racist, it was a Jimmy Carr style jibe. However, if this is the bar for malicious communication, I think half of twitter better be ready for a knock at the door from the police.
There was a really interesting post upthread about ex women's footballers having a more up to date appreciation of the modern men's game than men who are too long out of the game. I think it goes to the heart of what we want from the pundits on sports programmes. Arguably I think you want people able to give insight beyond what the man/woman in the pub/lounge has. Why are certain things happening? How could it be countered etc. It shouldn't matter who that person is if they have the knowledge and the ability to impart it. Where I have had a minor problem is with ex-players speaking of things that they don't know about. This includes female ex-players talking about the experience of men's football. Until recently women's football was tiny and there was a world of difference playing for Arsenal men's team in the Premiership vs the women's team. That is changing now, but I can understand how some male ex-players looked at the women and thought 'what do you now about the men's game"? The same applies in reverse. A male ex-pro doesn't understand the experience of a women playing top flight football.
So if your pundit is to be someone who has been there, done it, then perhaps a female ex-player isn't the best fit for the men's game, and an male ex-player isn't a good fit to talk about what its like to actually win an international tournament.
But if the pundit is there because they understand the modern game - it shouldn't matter who they are. Barton seems to be stuck in the mentality of only ex-pro's like him should be pundits. He couldn't be more wrong.
And he is a complete arse.
It's no coincidence that Gary Neville is at his best when analysing full backs. For example, his analysis of Aaron Wan Bissaka's defending against Arsenal in May was excellent because he knows the problems faced against smart attackers like Leandro Trossard.
The BBC used to have a show on a Sunday lunchtime on which you had an ex-pro, a commentator and journalist, and I thought that mix worked quite well. People like Jonathan Wilson and Tim Vickery are criminally underused by broadcasters and know a lot more about the game than many ex-pros (of either sex).
Frank Luntz is very much of the view that Trump will win. Why?
1)Inflation 2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
Be interesting to see what the tweets said and if he transgressed from fair criticism to something else.
That drumming up controversy to get grow his podcast has rather backfired. He was done in civil court by Jeremy Vine, which cost him a pretty penny and Aluko is also taking him to court. He was incredibly rude about both, and his nickname for Vine, I can understand why Vine took him to court. I can think of one tweet that was two footed challenge on Aluko, but it wasn't racist, it was a Jimmy Carr style jibe. However, if this is the bar for malicious communication, I think half of twitter better be ready for a knock at the door from the police.
There was a really interesting post upthread about ex women's footballers having a more up to date appreciation of the modern men's game than men who are too long out of the game. I think it goes to the heart of what we want from the pundits on sports programmes. Arguably I think you want people able to give insight beyond what the man/woman in the pub/lounge has. Why are certain things happening? How could it be countered etc. It shouldn't matter who that person is if they have the knowledge and the ability to impart it. Where I have had a minor problem is with ex-players speaking of things that they don't know about. This includes female ex-players talking about the experience of men's football. Until recently women's football was tiny and there was a world of difference playing for Arsenal men's team in the Premiership vs the women's team. That is changing now, but I can understand how some male ex-players looked at the women and thought 'what do you now about the men's game"? The same applies in reverse. A male ex-pro doesn't understand the experience of a women playing top flight football.
So if your pundit is to be someone who has been there, done it, then perhaps a female ex-player isn't the best fit for the men's game, and an male ex-player isn't a good fit to talk about what its like to actually win an international tournament.
But if the pundit is there because they understand the modern game - it shouldn't matter who they are. Barton seems to be stuck in the mentality of only ex-pro's like him should be pundits. He couldn't be more wrong.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
Ultimately it’s all about supply and demand, as price always is. But demand is modulated by factors such as interest rates and household dynamics, so it’s not all supply.
That’s said, most industrialised countries have similar dynamics no matter how densely populated they are overall: not enough supply in the places people want it (the big cities and their suburbs), and often enough or too much in the places people don’t want it. More sparsely populated countries still have supply constraints in cities, but more of a gap between city and provincial prices. The difference between the UK and say France is not Paris vs London, it’s Dorset or Wiltshire vs Lot or Haute Marne.
Be interesting to see what the tweets said and if he transgressed from fair criticism to something else.
That drumming up controversy to get grow his podcast has rather backfired. He was done in civil court by Jeremy Vine, which cost him a pretty penny and Aluko is also taking him to court. He was incredibly rude about both, and his nickname for Vine, I can understand why Vine took him to court. I can think of one tweet that was two footed challenge on Aluko, but it wasn't racist, it was a Jimmy Carr style jibe. However, if this is the bar for malicious communication, I think half of twitter better be ready for a knock at the door from the police.
There was a really interesting post upthread about ex women's footballers having a more up to date appreciation of the modern men's game than men who are too long out of the game. I think it goes to the heart of what we want from the pundits on sports programmes. Arguably I think you want people able to give insight beyond what the man/woman in the pub/lounge has. Why are certain things happening? How could it be countered etc. It shouldn't matter who that person is if they have the knowledge and the ability to impart it. Where I have had a minor problem is with ex-players speaking of things that they don't know about. This includes female ex-players talking about the experience of men's football. Until recently women's football was tiny and there was a world of difference playing for Arsenal men's team in the Premiership vs the women's team. That is changing now, but I can understand how some male ex-players looked at the women and thought 'what do you now about the men's game"? The same applies in reverse. A male ex-pro doesn't understand the experience of a women playing top flight football.
So if your pundit is to be someone who has been there, done it, then perhaps a female ex-player isn't the best fit for the men's game, and an male ex-player isn't a good fit to talk about what its like to actually win an international tournament.
But if the pundit is there because they understand the modern game - it shouldn't matter who they are. Barton seems to be stuck in the mentality of only ex-pro's like him should be pundits. He couldn't be more wrong.
And he is a complete arse.
It's no coincidence that Gary Neville is at his best when analysing full backs. For example, his analysis of Aaron Wan Bissaka's defending against Arsenal in May was excellent because he knows the problems faced against smart attackers like Leandro Trossard.
The BBC used to have a show on a Sunday lunchtime on which you had an ex-pro, a commentator and journalist, and I thought that mix worked quite well. People like Jonathan Wilson and Tim Vickery are criminally underused by broadcasters and know a lot more about the game than many ex-pros (of either sex).
Restricting Tim Vickery to the radio at 3am on Saturday morning is criminal....His insight into the current players in South American football is second to none.
Frank Luntz is very much of the view that Trump will win. Why?
1)Inflation 2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
All a bit depressing.
The big hitters aren’t going for it because they know that having a contest/trying to grab the crown from Harris so close to an election will look optically abysmal. They also have no time to organise/ get a campaign in place.
If Biden had swallowed his pride and stood aside last year, there would have been plenty of time for a competitive primary to test the competitors. He has unnecessarily put the party at a disadvantage, though not an insurmountable one.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
When we bought we used about 70% of the maximum quoted in our agreement in principle. But we both thought the agreement in principle amount was batshit crazy. We'd be in a spot of bother when our mortgage comes up next year if we had maxed out.
ETA: But this was back in the relatively good old days when house prices were a little less crazy
Frank Luntz is very much of the view that Trump will win. Why?
1)Inflation 2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
All a bit depressing.
Trump winning decisively would have the advantage that the Democrats would go through a period of genuine introspection rather than lashing out and blaming some scapegoat for their loss as they did in 2016.
If potatoes were too expensive, and there was a national chip shortage crisis, nobody would suggest a government "help to buy a bag of chips" subsidy, or shared social chips schemes, or targetting chips at certain parts of the population, or just eating other root vegetables for a decade until you can save up for some chips.
WE'D PLANT AND GROW MORE BLOODY POTATOES!
The impending spike in potato and chip prices is due to shit weather and will last at least twelve months. That’s twelve months if we have better weather next year as well, else make it 24.
I would have thought all the cool weather and rain means a bumper crop?
Also, hope everyone watching the F1 is enjoying it this season, it's been amazing so far. Loving the tantrums from Max and it's been shocking to see how quickly RBR have fallen off since Adrian Newey stopped contributing. They've gone from being first by quite some distance when he was in charge to being joint second and losing the in season development war to Mercedes and McLaren now that he's gone. I wonder how much longer RB will stay in F1 without Newey, I could easily see them sell up in the next 2-3 years.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
The UK housing market has vast numbers of independent private buyers buying from vast numbers of independent sellers.
Even if the new houses were all controlled by a cartel, which sounds like bollocks, people moving into new houses would still free up old houses which the cartel didn't control, so you'd still see the increased supply reducing prices.
You would get an artificially constrained supply, right? So those who control the new supply and the pricing of it will effectively control the market price of a house.
The premise of the comment I replied to was that the cartel were building new houses. Presumably they then collude to fix the prices of the houses they're selling.
In the south east of England and London, we just need to build, build, build.
More flats in urban locations. More houses where there is space. Expand existing towns. Create new towns with transport links. Build the infrastructure that comes with it.
Some of these will be quicker than others to implement but we shouldn't be aiming to just catch up on previous underinvestment, we should look forward to future growth in demand.
Other areas of the country I know less well, but the principle is one of demand led construction. If prices are high, it's a sign demand is high and builders should want to build if permitted.
Quality of life in the south-east of England is already below everywhere else because the population density is so high.
If potatoes were too expensive, and there was a national chip shortage crisis, nobody would suggest a government "help to buy a bag of chips" subsidy, or shared social chips schemes, or targetting chips at certain parts of the population, or just eating other root vegetables for a decade until you can save up for some chips.
WE'D PLANT AND GROW MORE BLOODY POTATOES!
The impending spike in potato and chip prices is due to shit weather and will last at least twelve months. That’s twelve months if we have better weather next year as well, else make it 24.
I would have thought all the cool weather and rain means a bumper crop?
Not when the ground is so sodden you can’t get machinery on it to sow the bloody things, and when you can they just rot in the soil.
If potatoes were too expensive, and there was a national chip shortage crisis, nobody would suggest a government "help to buy a bag of chips" subsidy, or shared social chips schemes, or targetting chips at certain parts of the population, or just eating other root vegetables for a decade until you can save up for some chips.
WE'D PLANT AND GROW MORE BLOODY POTATOES!
The impending spike in potato and chip prices is due to shit weather and will last at least twelve months. That’s twelve months if we have better weather next year as well, else make it 24.
I would have thought all the cool weather and rain means a bumper crop?
Its clearly completely different but my second earlies from the allotment are great this year...
Joe Manchin, a former longtime Democrat turned independent, said he is “pursuing the process” towards putting his name on the ticket for the Democrat presidential nominee.
“I think going through some sort of a process would have been very enlightening to everybody. So I’m pursuing the process. I really believe strongly along with, I think, former President Obama and speaker Nancy Pelosi both think there should be a process.”
Doesn't he have to be a Democrat ? Last thing I recall he re-registered as an independent.
Can't see the 76 year old getting many proposers from the convention delegates.
There had been some chatter that Sen Joe Manchin, who recently changed his party affiliation to independent, might mount a bid for the Democratic nomination, but Reuters has a quick snap that he has, in a CBS interview, now ruled it out.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
The problem isn't that they're joined up to each other, it's that they're joined up to the Tories and Labour.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
I'm not sure making it purely a referendum on Trump is a great idea. Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't get much beyond "I'm a woman" and "I'm not Trump", and we saw how that worked out. And one of the biggest failings of the Remain campaign was letting it be cast as "are you for or against Brexit".
Frank Luntz is very much of the view that Trump will win. Why?
1)Inflation 2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
All a bit depressing.
The big hitters aren’t going for it because they know that having a contest/trying to grab the crown from Harris so close to an election will look optically abysmal. They also have no time to organise/ get a campaign in place.
If Biden had swallowed his pride and stood aside last year, there would have been plenty of time for a competitive primary to test the competitors. He has unnecessarily put the party at a disadvantage, though not an insurmountable one.
In a similar manner, the 'big hitters' all stayed out last year because they recognised the incumbent has an almost insurmountable advantage.
It's a baked in feature of the US system, for both good and ill.
Frank Luntz is very much of the view that Trump will win. Why?
1)Inflation 2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
All a bit depressing.
Trump winning decisively would have the advantage that the Democrats would go through a period of genuine introspection rather than lashing out and blaming some scapegoat for their loss as they did in 2016.
Trump losing decisively would mean the GOP going through a period of genuine introspection, rather than lashing out and blaming lots of scapegoats for their loss, as they did in 2020 - and continue to do.
“Build more and house prices will drop” would be true if there was a real, competitive market between house developers/builders. In reality they are more joined up than OPEC.
Which is why we need proper planning reform. Abolish the requirement to get planning permission, which developers can game and gives them an oligopoly with no competition.
People who want to build houses should be worrying about the skills and materials to build houses, not an army of lawyers to get planning consent.
Be interesting to see what the tweets said and if he transgressed from fair criticism to something else.
That drumming up controversy to get grow his podcast has rather backfired. He was done in civil court by Jeremy Vine, which cost him a pretty penny and Aluko is also taking him to court. He was incredibly rude about both, and his nickname for Vine, I can understand why Vine took him to court. I can think of one tweet that was two footed challenge on Aluko, but it wasn't racist, it was a Jimmy Carr style jibe. However, if this is the bar for malicious communication, I think half of twitter better be ready for a knock at the door from the police.
There was a really interesting post upthread about ex women's footballers having a more up to date appreciation of the modern men's game than men who are too long out of the game. I think it goes to the heart of what we want from the pundits on sports programmes. Arguably I think you want people able to give insight beyond what the man/woman in the pub/lounge has. Why are certain things happening? How could it be countered etc. It shouldn't matter who that person is if they have the knowledge and the ability to impart it. Where I have had a minor problem is with ex-players speaking of things that they don't know about. This includes female ex-players talking about the experience of men's football. Until recently women's football was tiny and there was a world of difference playing for Arsenal men's team in the Premiership vs the women's team. That is changing now, but I can understand how some male ex-players looked at the women and thought 'what do you now about the men's game"? The same applies in reverse. A male ex-pro doesn't understand the experience of a women playing top flight football.
So if your pundit is to be someone who has been there, done it, then perhaps a female ex-player isn't the best fit for the men's game, and an male ex-player isn't a good fit to talk about what its like to actually win an international tournament.
But if the pundit is there because they understand the modern game - it shouldn't matter who they are. Barton seems to be stuck in the mentality of only ex-pro's like him should be pundits. He couldn't be more wrong.
And he is a complete arse.
Joey Barton is a very strange individual.
He seems to be going down the same political route as Matt Le Tissier.
Frank Luntz is very much of the view that Trump will win. Why?
1)Inflation 2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
All a bit depressing.
Trump winning decisively would have the advantage that the Democrats would go through a period of genuine introspection rather than lashing out and blaming some scapegoat for their loss as they did in 2016.
Trump losing decisively would mean the GOP going through a period of genuine introspection, rather than lashing out and blaming lots of scapegoats for their loss, as they did in 2020 - and continue to do.
a) that assumes she wins the single electoral vote from Nebraska. Biden won it: Hillary didn’t. If she doesn’t, it’s contingent election time on 269-269.
b) 270 EVs isn’t a great number to be sitting on because all it takes is one faithless elector to throw the whole thing into chaos. Which they could do with avoiding.
So it would be helpful if she could also grab one of NV/AZ/GA/NC too. GA and NC looked beyond reach for Biden, and unless Harris makes big inroads there then they will likely be out of play. The others are not easy, but she has time to make a play for them.
That's true. I was sort of assuming that if she wins those 3 states she would be very likely to also win Nevada and also possibly Arizona or Georgia.
Frank Luntz is very much of the view that Trump will win. Why?
1)Inflation 2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
All a bit depressing.
Trump winning decisively would have the advantage that the Democrats would go through a period of genuine introspection rather than lashing out and blaming some scapegoat for their loss as they did in 2016.
Well, presuming they aren't too busy trying to avoid arrest/lynching by Trump's militia forces.
In the south east of England and London, we just need to build, build, build.
More flats in urban locations. More houses where there is space. Expand existing towns. Create new towns with transport links. Build the infrastructure that comes with it.
Some of these will be quicker than others to implement but we shouldn't be aiming to just catch up on previous underinvestment, we should look forward to future growth in demand.
Other areas of the country I know less well, but the principle is one of demand led construction. If prices are high, it's a sign demand is high and builders should want to build if permitted.
Quality of life in the south-east of England is already below everywhere else because the population density is so high.
Quality of life in London is way above everywhere else because the population density is high. Cities are great.
Comments
If Labour don't do it, the Conservatives will eventually be forced into advocating it.
If Starmer stabilises house prices for a decade or so he'll be doing the next generation a massive service.
No government is going to change that.
But you've now missed the bus with Hillary.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3841434,-1.1175371,3a,75y,303.13h,75.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soCMSEVm1QdKBgEgjG09SMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
Prices round here are low compared to the nationwide average.
Even if the new houses were all controlled by a cartel, which sounds like bollocks, people moving into new houses would still free up old houses which the cartel didn't control, so you'd still see the increased supply reducing prices.
Australia, doing buy to let is like here, but on steroids. Taxes on the upper middle class are very high, but you can gain massive tax advantages if you own buy to lets. It so huge you would be an absolute moron not to, basically every upper middle class person owns multiple units because it is so tax advantageous to do so.
The "Dirty" Economy Of Australia (11 min 30 in)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ohj_pOjp6U
1) The demand curve for housing in our cities is shallow. That means that more houses only had a marginal impact on prices. They remain unaffordable for most first time buyers. I reckon this is why renting has exploded over the last 10 years.
2) Developers are motivated by profit, not by housing as many people as possible. That's why you get thousands of detached houses with garages and (minute) gardens, rather than tenements and communal facilities as in the past.
3) Building houses around towns and in the countryside makes next to zero difference to the market in the cities (where young people live and study). The country desperately needs a towns strategy to make these smaller settlements more attractive for employers and young people.
https://www.270towin.com
So if your pundit is to be someone who has been there, done it, then perhaps a female ex-player isn't the best fit for the men's game, and an male ex-player isn't a good fit to talk about what its like to actually win an international tournament.
But if the pundit is there because they understand the modern game - it shouldn't matter who they are. Barton seems to be stuck in the mentality of only ex-pro's like him should be pundits. He couldn't be more wrong.
And he is a complete arse.
They went for Great British Energy.
They should have gone for Great British Housebuilding as well, with the stated aim of overriding all the housing blockages, including planning and the power of the construction cartels, to build high-quality housing (including social housing).
(No, I haven't worked out how it would operate in practice, before anyone asks).
Will she appeal to them ?
Edit: And the mining disaster that shut the largest flaked parmesan mines.
a) that assumes she wins the single electoral vote from Nebraska. Biden won it: Hillary didn’t. If she doesn’t, it’s contingent election time on 269-269.
b) 270 EVs isn’t a great number to be sitting on because all it takes is one faithless elector to throw the whole thing into chaos. Which they could do with avoiding.
So it would be helpful if she could also grab one of NV/AZ/GA/NC too. GA and NC looked beyond reach for Biden, and unless Harris makes big inroads there then they will likely be out of play. The others are not easy, but she has time to make a play for them.
The BBC used to have a show on a Sunday lunchtime on which you had an ex-pro, a commentator and journalist, and I thought that mix worked quite well. People like Jonathan Wilson and Tim Vickery are criminally underused by broadcasters and know a lot more about the game than many ex-pros (of either sex).
1)Inflation
2)Immigration
Harris' vice president ratings are pretty poor. If she is simply given the nomination without having won it herself will that look good? Yet it seems as though the big hitters don't want to go for it this time around as they are already assuming Trump will win.
All a bit depressing.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
That’s said, most industrialised countries have similar dynamics no matter how densely populated they are overall: not enough supply in the places people want it (the big cities and their suburbs), and often enough or too much in the places people don’t want it. More sparsely populated countries still have supply constraints in cities, but more of a gap between city and provincial prices. The difference between the UK and say France is not Paris vs London, it’s Dorset or Wiltshire vs Lot or Haute Marne.
If Biden had swallowed his pride and stood aside last year, there would have been plenty of time for a competitive primary to test the competitors. He has unnecessarily put the party at a disadvantage, though not an insurmountable one.
ETA: But this was back in the relatively good old days when house prices were a little less crazy
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
It's a baked in feature of the US system, for both good and ill.
NEW THREAD
https://x.com/DougJBalloon/status/1815113417797030130
People who want to build houses should be worrying about the skills and materials to build houses, not an army of lawyers to get planning consent.