This is what having momentum looks like – politicalbetting.com

AnthonyT said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FrankBooth said:

I've just been reading through last night's thread which some have complained about as full of racism. To be honest I don't get it. There was one ambiguous remark by Leon which felt dodgy but otherwise I'm not sure what people are getting at.

Ultimately we cannot ignore the enormous racial/cultural disparities that exist in crime statistics in this country.

Are there enormous racial/cultural disparities in crime stats?

Or is crime typically committed by young people and the crime stats are representative of young person's demographics?

[I don't know the answer to this, genuine question]

The biggest predictor for crime is sex.

Incidentally, this week a 34 year old man was spared jail after being convicted of attacking a woman who rejected his sexual advances. He punched her repeatedly and slashed her across the face, stomach and chest. He did not plead guilty. He also threatened to kill her or have others kill her.

The judge started his sentencing remarks by saying that he did not want to send him to jail. Why not? This sort of behaviour is exactly what needs to lead to a jail sentence. Or are we safe to assume that a man who flies into a rage when a woman rejects his advances will never do it again?

Court delays and a lack of prison places were part of the reason the judge suspended the sentence.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/eastenders-actor-harry-rafferty-wood-green-crown-court-jail-camden-knife-b1173733.html

Labour is pledging to halve violence against women and girls. It is going to have to invest in the criminal justice system and prison places if it really means this.

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

MattW said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

A Telegraph podcast interview with Liz Truss.

I don't think I've ever seen a more creative list of other people who's fault it was (including sundry institutions, a level crossing for making her late, and the Returning Officer for preventing her making a speech); I can't see that she has resiled from a single thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIjg0ow4UW4

TBH she sounds like General Paulus in about 1953, spending his declining years explaining why Stalingrad was not his responsibility. Imo the difference is that he had some reasonable excuses.

You actually think that she should have ignored centuries of convention, and the returning officer, and barged her way to the front to make an unprecedented loser's speech? You'd have squealed with indignation if that had happened. Some people here are pitiably twisted in their Truss hatred.

I think you need to try a bit harder. Unprecedented loser's speech?

Formally it's in the discretion of the Returning Officer. I've watched hundreds of count announcements, and runners up not making speeches is rare iirc. I can't recall where that has not happened. Anyone else?

A former PM being prevented from making such a concession speech? Cloud-cuckoo land. As an agricultural area, there should lots of pigs in Downham Market - perhaps some can fly.

There's only one person who has put La Truss where she is now. The first thing she needs to do is look in the mirror.

If would have been unprecedented in a constituency where they don't do losers speeches. Did the returning officer announce her and then look blank as she stalked off? Or were they ushered away in the same way they always do it. You are suggesting that she should have pulled rank and done a speech anyway because??

It's you and your excuses for your own boorish vituperation that are pathetic. And perhaps it's you who should take a good look in the mirror.

Pulpstar said:

I know you all wanted it, so here it is

Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:

Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham

Best/Qualifying areas.

190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire

Pulpstar said:

I know you all wanted it, so here it is

Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:

Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham

Best/Qualifying areas.

190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?

No.

I believe in supply and demand.

I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.

Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

Northern_Al said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.

American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.

Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.

I do.

Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again

As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.

Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris

I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.

I seem to recall Walter Mondale being mentioned as a guide to how Harris would perform.

More Dukakis who got 45.6% in 1988, about what Harris is now polling

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?

No.

I believe in supply and demand.

I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.

Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.

That is a ridiculous comment.

You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.

More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?

We're debating Bart's utopia where there are no planning constraints and no immigration constraints.

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.

If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.

If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs

It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.

With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.

Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.

Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.

The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.

So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.

The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.

The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.

The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).

Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.

Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.

While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.

Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.

You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.

Yes I think it would.

So what? That's a good thing is it not?

Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.

We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

What do we reckon, suspended sentence for being of previous good character and pleading guilty?

eek said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

Northern_Al said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.

American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.

Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.

I do.

Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again

As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.

Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris

I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.

I seem to recall Walter Mondale being mentioned as a guide to how Harris would perform.

More Dukakis who got 45.6% in 1988, about what Harris is now polling

You are dreaming if you think Dukakis is a valid comparison.

Flatlander said:

Pulpstar said:

Ratters said:

Pulpstar said:

I know you all wanted it, so here it is

Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:

Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham

Best/Qualifying areas.

190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire

Can you explain that one to me? Why is lower average completions per year per population better for this purpose?

Sorry my formula is upside down.

It is Population / The ave number of completions per year for the previous 10 years.

Is there a link to the source data? Be quite interesting to put it on a map...

Thanks, though. Surprised the Flatlands aren't meeting the target given the amounting of building we've seen.

MisterBedfordshire said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

Does anyone know the context of this?

Ie age 12 or 17 for example

Person known to them or not.

The change from 16 to 18 in the age limit has rather muddied the waters and means that two 17 year olds can enjoy a sexual relationship but become PAEDOS if they photo each other in a provocative way. Obviously Mr Edwards is much older.

Although it would be grimly amusing if the British Library got raided and various directors done because their archives include copies of The Sun from the '80s with topless Samantha aged 16 in it.

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

What do we reckon, suspended sentence for being of previous good character and pleading guilty?

Pulpstar said:

Flatlander said:

Pulpstar said:

Ratters said:

Pulpstar said:

I know you all wanted it, so here it is

Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:

Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham

Best/Qualifying areas.

190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire

Can you explain that one to me? Why is lower average completions per year per population better for this purpose?

Sorry my formula is upside down.

It is Population / The ave number of completions per year for the previous 10 years.

Is there a link to the source data? Be quite interesting to put it on a map...

Thanks, though. Surprised the Flatlands aren't meeting the target given the amounting of building we've seen.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bBO7Yc_KIk9--T38_TmoQgjuog82r-KkVa2ccKRQC-A/edit?usp=sharing

Sources:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/housebuildingukpermanentdwellingsstartedandcompletedbylocalauthority

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/datasets/localauthoritiesinenglandtable2

FrankBooth said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

What do we reckon, suspended sentence for being of previous good character and pleading guilty?

I think the age of the children matters. And also how many. Could be 16-17 year old right?

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

Ratters said:

Pulpstar said:

Ratters said:

Pulpstar said:

I know you all wanted it, so here it is

Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:

Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham

Best/Qualifying areas.

190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire

Can you explain that one to me? Why is lower average completions per year per population better for this purpose?

Sorry my formula is upside down.

It is Population / The ave number of completions per year for the previous 10 years.

Interesting. Especially as living in Kingston there has been a large number of (relatively) high rise flats built over the last decade and more under construction.

The list above implies only 100 new homes build per year, while I'd have though some of these new builds had that many flats in a single building.

GIN1138 said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

The historic announcement of QEII death will always be associated with someone convicted of underage sex crimes.

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?

No.

I believe in supply and demand.

I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.

Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.

That is a ridiculous comment.

You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.

More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?

We're debating Bart's utopia where there are no planning constraints and no immigration constraints.

Eh?

I never advocated no immigration constraints.

I have advocated liberal migration rules, but not a free for all.

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

tlg86 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.

What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.

I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.

The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.

I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.

What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.

Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:

If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?

How much clearer can I be?

Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.

If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.

What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.

Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.

Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.

So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.

Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.

Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.

So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.

If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.

That has nothing to do with planning though.

Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."

Of course you can!

If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?

If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?

If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.

You are, untypically, but perhaps wilfully missing the point.

Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).

Not your usual ruthlessly logical self.

Yes, I propose abolishing planning rules, not noise pollution rules.

I'm in favour of rules against pollution (which includes noise pollution), as well as building regulations, but that whatever people want to do on their own land within the law that meets regulations should be permitted no questions asked.

Whatever is not forbidden is lawful.

What's illogical about that?

Well if you are in favour of building regulations then we don't have a problem.

You said:

"Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him."

But it is not up to him. It is up to whatever the building regulations say he can do. Which is not very much these days. I thought that you were not in favour of such building regulations but now you seem to be.

It appears that you have come full circle in your views about what should and shouldn't be allowed "on your own land". And/or you will have to explain to me the difference between building regulations and planning laws.

I've been pretty clear but in case you still don't understand.

Building regulations set the law as to what is safe and legal to do.

Planning says whether you get permission to do it, even if its safe and legal someone can object and it takes time and money to get permission.

The former should exist, the second should not.

So long as you are operating within the law, permission should be automatic. If you break the law, there should be consequences retrospectively.

GIN1138 said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

The historic announcement of QEII death will always be associated with someone convicted of underage sex crimes.

AnthonyT said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

What do we reckon, suspended sentence for being of previous good character and pleading guilty?

Someone who makes indecent images of children is by definition not of good character. And probably has not been for some time.

But a suspended sentence most likely. Not least because there have been plenty of cases this year of men having done far worse in terms of indecent images of children and being spared jail.

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?

No.

I believe in supply and demand.

I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.

Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.

That is a ridiculous comment.

You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.

More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?

We're debating Bart's utopia where there are no planning constraints and no immigration constraints.

Eh?

I never advocated no immigration constraints.

I have advocated liberal migration rules, but not a free for all.

More liberal than they are now?

MisterBedfordshire said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

tlg86 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.

What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.

I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.

The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.

I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.

What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.

Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:

If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?

How much clearer can I be?

Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.

If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.

Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.

So what? Free market.

Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.

I fear you're missing the point. I'm not talkiing about competition lowering the value of your house as part of a fall in overall prices, but someone deliberately making your house unsellable in order to acquire it for a song.

So, for example, someone might make their home into a halfway house for young offenders?

I once trolled a local facebook group who were in Full Nimby Froth mode about a plan for an old peoples home on a disused allotment; telling them that due to the objections the scheme had been cancelled and a hostel for newly released sex offenders would be built instead (said disused allotment was next to the Scout Hut).

It was epic.

A colleg said that I shouldn't be allowed on social media (when he finally stopped laughing).

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

tlg86 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.

What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.

I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.

The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.

I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.

What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.

Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:

If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?

How much clearer can I be?

Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.

If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.

What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.

Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.

Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.

So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.

Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.

Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.

So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.

If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.

That has nothing to do with planning though.

Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."

Of course you can!

If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?

If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?

If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.

You are, untypically, but perhaps wilfully missing the point.

Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).

Not your usual ruthlessly logical self.

Yes, I propose abolishing planning rules, not noise pollution rules.

I'm in favour of rules against pollution (which includes noise pollution), as well as building regulations, but that whatever people want to do on their own land within the law that meets regulations should be permitted no questions asked.

Whatever is not forbidden is lawful.

What's illogical about that?

Well if you are in favour of building regulations then we don't have a problem.

You said:

"Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him."

But it is not up to him. It is up to whatever the building regulations say he can do. Which is not very much these days. I thought that you were not in favour of such building regulations but now you seem to be.

It appears that you have come full circle in your views about what should and shouldn't be allowed "on your own land". And/or you will have to explain to me the difference between building regulations and planning laws.

I've been pretty clear but in case you still don't understand.

Building regulations set the law as to what is safe and legal to do.

Planning says whether you get permission to do it, even if its safe and legal someone can object and it takes time and money to get permission.

The former should exist, the second should not.

So long as you are operating within the law, permission should be automatic. If you break the law, there should be consequences retrospectively.

That truly is weird. You decide upon one set of laws you like and another you don't. Either have them or don't have them but to mix and match is hypocritical. You don't mind something that someone else does mind. And vice versa.

And also given your views on what you should be able to do "on your own land", it is bizarre in the extreme that you should be in favour of a third party dictating how you should do it.

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.

If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.

If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs

It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.

With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.

Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.

Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.

The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.

So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.

The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.

The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.

The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).

Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.

Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.

While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.

Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.

You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.

Yes I think it would.

So what? That's a good thing is it not?

Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.

We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.

So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?

Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.

Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.

Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".

eek said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

tlg86 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.

What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.

I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.

The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.

I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.

What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.

Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:

If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?

How much clearer can I be?

Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.

If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.

What if the only way to supply his house with gas, electricity and water is put a huge generator and turbine and watertank on the public pavement outside your house.

Weird question, then they would need to come up with a new design to put their generator etc on their own land, not other people's land.

Whatever you want to do with your own land should be up to you. Putting it on other people's land is not OK.

So they could have a wind turbine and generator running 24x7 next door to you and water deliveries all day and night and that is ok with you. That is a degree of friendly neighbourliness that is not usually present.

Edit: in fact not only is it usually not present in other people I don't believe it is present in you. You would not like it.

Building requires externalities, which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.

So long as they don't create noise pollution or break other rules then yes I couldn't care less.

If its generating noise pollution then they would have to shut it down at appropriate hours or fix it remedially.

That has nothing to do with planning though.

Noise pollution rules regulate what you can and cannot do because it affects neighbours. Same as "right to light". They are related to planning as they are all regulations that allow people, yourself for example, to protect yourself, or rather, to have a say in what someone else does. You cannot say "build anywhere" and then say "oh but noise pollution..."

Of course you can!

If a pre-existing pub that is already near you gets a new Manager who decides to put on loud music at night and the patrons make loud noises at night would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?

If a pre-existing shop that is near you starts getting deliveries at night and the staff are loud would you say "oh well, the building is already there, so there's nothing I can do" or would you make a noise complaint?

If someone is creating noise there are avenues to deal with that. It does not require planning.

You are, untypically, but perhaps wilfully missing the point.

Rules about noise, like rules about planning are there to allow the community a voice in their local environment. You are saying that if it is on their own land then people should be able to build what they want. But they can't at the moment because planning rules forbid them. Just as noise pollution rules forbid the new Manager from putting on loud music at night. So you are in favour of some rules (governing noise pollution) and not others (governing what people can build on their own land).

Not your usual ruthlessly logical self.

Yes, I propose abolishing planning rules, not noise pollution rules.

I'm in favour of rules against pollution (which includes noise pollution), as well as building regulations, but that whatever people want to do on their own land within the law that meets regulations should be permitted no questions asked.

Whatever is not forbidden is lawful.

What's illogical about that?

Well if you are in favour of building regulations then we don't have a problem.

You said:

"Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him."

But it is not up to him. It is up to whatever the building regulations say he can do. Which is not very much these days. I thought that you were not in favour of such building regulations but now you seem to be.

It appears that you have come full circle in your views about what should and shouldn't be allowed "on your own land". And/or you will have to explain to me the difference between building regulations and planning laws.

I've been pretty clear but in case you still don't understand.

Building regulations set the law as to what is safe and legal to do.

Planning says whether you get permission to do it, even if its safe and legal someone can object and it takes time and money to get permission.

The former should exist, the second should not.

So long as you are operating within the law, permission should be automatic. If you break the law, there should be consequences retrospectively.

That truly is weird. You decide upon one set of laws you like and another you don't. Either have them or don't have them but to mix and match is hypocritical. You don't mind something that someone else does mind. And vice versa.

And also given your views on what you should be able to do "on your own land", it is bizarre in the extreme that you should be in favour of a third party dictating how you should do it.

The two laws boil done to

Building regulations - is the building safe to live in
Planning - can I build a four bedroom house on that site.

While I don't agree with Bart on point 2 I don't see the issue with it as the 2 items serve very different purposes...

FrankBooth said:

Some statistics on race/religion and the prison population:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2022/statistics-on-ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2022-html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/872042/leading-religions-of-prisoners-in-england-and-wales/

Firstly whites are clearly not the least criminal ethnic group.
Black people at 4% of the overall population are 12% of the prison population
Alarmingly among under 18s, they are 30% of the prison population.
There are several times more Muslims in prison than there are people of all other minority religions combined.

When you actually think about the diversity of the black and Muslim population you might argue lumping them all together is unwise. But it does suggest trouble within SOME black and SOME Muslim communities.

Malmesbury said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

tlg86 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.

What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.

I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.

The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.

I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.

What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.

Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:

If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?

How much clearer can I be?

Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.

If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.

Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.

So what? Free market.

Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.

I fear you're missing the point. I'm not talkiing about competition lowering the value of your house as part of a fall in overall prices, but someone deliberately making your house unsellable in order to acquire it for a song.

So, for example, someone might make their home into a halfway house for young offenders?

I once trolled a local facebook group who were in Full Nimby Froth mode about a plan for an old peoples home on a disused allotment; telling them that due to the objections the scheme had been cancelled and a hostel for newly released sex offenders would be built instead (said disused allotment was next to the Scout Hut).

It was epic.

A colleg said that I shouldn't be allowed on social media (when he finally stopped laughing).

My best troll was selling an MP on the idea of growing peanuts in Africa to use for making biofuel.

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.

If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.

If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs

It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.

With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.

Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.

Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.

The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.

So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.

The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.

The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.

The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).

Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.

Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.

While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.

Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.

You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.

Yes I think it would.

So what? That's a good thing is it not?

Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.

We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.

So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?

Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.

Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.

Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".

But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?

eek said:

AnthonyT said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

What do we reckon, suspended sentence for being of previous good character and pleading guilty?

Someone who makes indecent images of children is by definition not of good character. And probably has not been for some time.

But a suspended sentence most likely. Not least because there have been plenty of cases this year of men having done far worse in terms of indecent images of children and being spared jail.

The problem with your argument is that the definition of making indecent images of children means any photo on your phone qualifies as it's a copy of the original...

Not that I'm disagreeing with you statement but it's a crime that was far harder to commit when that law was originally written...

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.

If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.

If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs

It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.

With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.

Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.

Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.

The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.

So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.

The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.

The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.

The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).

Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.

Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.

While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.

Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.

You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.

Yes I think it would.

So what? That's a good thing is it not?

Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.

We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.

So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?

Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.

Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.

Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".

But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?

No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.

I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.

A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.

Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

Cookie said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Y

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Cookie said:

eek said:

FF43 said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...

You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...

So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..

I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.

All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.

Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.

As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...

I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.

Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.

I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.

edit - you already made both my points further down..

Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?

After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?

Mm - define 'economically viable'.

Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So:
a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers?
b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered?
c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?


Answer: it's complicated!

Its not that complicated.

If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.

It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.

Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.

It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.

Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.

All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).

If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.

It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).

Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.

I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.

Eh?

You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)

It is basically a branch.

The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.

As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).

There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).

Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.

Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...

Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.

Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/sta

Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...

Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.

Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.

A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.

The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:

* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.

* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .


https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WHHSJN/2024-07-31/0835

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:COLWHXN/2024-07-31/0822

Shall we run through how this conversation started?

You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.

I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.

You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.

I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.

You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.

You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.

On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.

But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.

Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.

MattW said:

Pulpstar said:

Ratters said:

Pulpstar said:

I know you all wanted it, so here it is

Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:

Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham

Best/Qualifying areas.

190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire

Can you explain that one to me? Why is lower average completions per year per population better for this purpose?

Sorry my formula is upside down.

It is Population / The ave number of completions per year for the previous 10 years.

Yes - just got to that.

The numbers provided represent "Dwellings built per X people each year on average."

So Milton Keynes is "one dwelling annually on average built per 165 people", or in the terms I suggested 0.6%.

And we are perhaps ignoring things such as conversions to HMO etc.

Ashfield is 134 = 0.75% and Mansfield is 112 = 0.9%, so we are pulling our weight and more on this data.

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

@tomhfh
The average house price in Redcar is £164,115.

The average house price in London is £693,969.

Guess which has had their housing target cut, and which has seen their housing target balloon?

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1818413582314352735

This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.

And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.

A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.

Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.

* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.

Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.

The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary

"Relative to London" is irrelevant.

Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.

Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.

3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.

Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.

ONS Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2022
Specifically Redcar: https://i.ibb.co/429VZ8m/image.png

3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.

If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices

No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.

If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.

No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.

If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.

If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs

It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.

With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.

Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.

Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.

The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.

So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.

The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.

The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.

The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).

Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.

Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.

While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.

Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.

You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.

Yes I think it would.

So what? That's a good thing is it not?

Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.

We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.

So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?

Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.

Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.

Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".

But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?

No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.

I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.

A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.

Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.

It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.

Dura_Ace said:

Andy_JS said:

"Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/31/huw-edwards-arrives-court-charged/

I feel like the reportage lacks poignancy unless we the know the medium employed in the "making". Oil on canvas? Gouache? Lost wax bronze casting?

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Pulpstar said:

Ratters said:

Pulpstar said:

I know you all wanted it, so here it is

Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:

Worst authorities
*lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly
1954 Brighton and Hove
1630 Kingston upon Thames
1578 Richmond upon Thames
1441 Eastbourne
1358 Adur
1251 Leicester
1221 Norwich
1169 Southend-on-Sea
1136 Birmingham

Best/Qualifying areas.

190 Tower Hamlets
189 Wychavon
188 Wokingham
185 East Devon
184 West Oxfordshire
182 South Cambridgeshire
182 Central Bedfordshire
179 Maidstone
177 Mid Suffolk
173 South Norfolk
171 Telford and Wrekin
165 Milton Keynes
163 Cherwell
162 North West Leicestershire
160 Dartford
155 Ribble Valley
155 Tewkesbury
153 Vale of White Horse
149 Harborough
132 Stratford-on-Avon
126 South Derbyshire

Can you explain that one to me? Why is lower average completions per year per population better for this purpose?

Sorry my formula is upside down.

It is Population / The ave number of completions per year for the previous 10 years.

Yes - just got to that.

The numbers provided represent "Dwellings built per X people each year on average."

So Milton Keynes is "one dwelling annually on average built per 165 people", or in the terms I suggested 0.6%.

And we are perhaps ignoring things such as conversions to HMO etc.

Ashfield is 134 = 0.75% and Mansfield is 112 = 0.9%, so we are pulling our weight and more on this data.

Its better than elsewhere but only pulling weight on the pathetically low 300k housing target though.

Given our chronic housing shortage, population growth and demographic growth we should be aiming for a minimum of 1 million new builds per annum. Which after a decade would still leave us with a serious housing shortage, just not as chronic as today.

prh47bridge said:

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

Cookie said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Y

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Cookie said:

eek said:

FF43 said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...

You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...

So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..

I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.

All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.

Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.

As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...

I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.

Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.

I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.

edit - you already made both my points further down..

Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?

After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?

Mm - define 'economically viable'.

Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So:
a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers?
b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered?
c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?


Answer: it's complicated!

Its not that complicated.

If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.

It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.

Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.

It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.

Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.

All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).

If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.

It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).

Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.

I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.

Eh?

You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)

It is basically a branch.

The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.

As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).

There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).

Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.

Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...

Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.

Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/sta

Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...

Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.

Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.

A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.

The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:

* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.

* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .


https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WHHSJN/2024-07-31/0835

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:COLWHXN/2024-07-31/0822

Shall we run through how this conversation started?

You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.

I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.

You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.

I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.

You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.

You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.

On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.

But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.

Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.

To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.

Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.

An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.

So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.

I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.

If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.