Amazed to see not one comment about the 2 Israelis murdered this morning in Washington.
What comment do you want someone to make?
The silence speaks volumes
Go on - what is the implication you are groping for? That we are all happy that two young people have been murdered? Or something else? Make your point. Frankly its a horrific event in another country, and a country, that sadly, has more than its share of murders. If this was in London it would be a big story on PB.
So come on, make your point.
It does appear to be politically motivated. Big controversy would be over possible state involvement.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
On Chagos/British Indian Ocean Territory... Starmers problem here is that nobody is going to vote Labour because he paid Mauritius to take it, many will shrug but to a sizeable minority who think the guy is working against this country's interests its more evidence. No gain but a lot of pain from those who do care. And the financial details will now come out as he expects MPs to vote on tipping the disabled out of their chairs and telling them to get a job because we can't afford to look after them. In other news I got my migration letter today to go onto the shitty UC. Thanks Tories for introducing that turd.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
🚨BREAKING: Huge dust cloud over North London as Stadium cleaners opened the trophy cabinet in preparation for the arrival on the Europa League tomorrow 🏆
All flights to/from Luton tomorrow are CANCELLED, major disruption to Heathrow & London City expected all day.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
🚨BREAKING: Huge dust cloud over North London as Stadium cleaners opened the trophy cabinet in preparation for the arrival on the Europa League tomorrow 🏆
All flights to/from Luton tomorrow are CANCELLED, major disruption to Heathrow & London City expected all day.
I'm surprised the smallest club in London has room for a cabinet. I expected a trophy shoebox
Brum is a very different place to that I knew in the 80's.
It is to the one I knew in the late nineties, early 0’s. My sister is in Acocks Green not far from where the old dog track was.
It was a real eye opener when I was there for Blues last game of the season. First time I’d been to the holy ground since we lost to Preston years ago and Bowyer got sent off for nutting someone.
It wasn’t the litter but the junk dumped like mattresses and fridges, and the Palestinian flags flying everywhere.
My first ever house was on The Avenue, Acocks Green. £16,800, three bedrooms with about a 900 foot garden down to the railway line...
My sister is the other side of the Warwick Road and has the same. Her train line is the one that comes from Stratford. It merges onto the line you backed onto at Tyseley.
Also slightly odd now to think that in the years I lived there, it had a Conservative MP (Yardley - then a bellwhether constituency).
Pity me. I now have to drive 19,389 miles to pick up my older daughter from university - who cleverly chose the university which is, on the British mainland, the furthest possible from her doting father
So nothing in next week's Gazette about helicopters then?
A motoring YouTuber would seize the opportunity for a "challenge" to do the trip on one tank of fuel. I think they all got the idea from watching Jeremy Clarkson do it several times on Top Gear.
Last week it was reported that Dr Sarah Ruggins had done JOG - LE - JOG in five days, 11 hours, and 14 minutes .. on a cycle, taking the open record, and knocking 40% off the previous women's record. That's 650+ km per day.
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
At 02:25 BST Mr Justice Goose granted "interim relief" to Chagossian Bertrice Pompe who had brought a case against the Foreign Office.
In his order, the judge said: "The defendant shall take no conclusive or legally binding step to conclude its negotiations concerning the possible transfer of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago, to a foreign government or bind itself as to the particular terms of any such transfer."
Somewhat amusing.
I presume the claimant brought an interesting legal ground, other than Starmer is a traitor.
The fact that the government can be told what to do in the middle of the night by a single high court judge, instantly obey it, refrain from attacking the judge, and make its case in a civilized way before court in due course and accept its conclusions used to be something taken for granted.
The whole Boris 'Enemies of the State' and Prorogation period muddied the waters quite a bit and meant for a time that a proper relationship of judiciary and executive could not be taken for granted.
Trumpian approaches to all this now make us look like an ark of civilization in an anarchic universe. Labour should be commended for this return to normality.
I think most of the public seriously underestimate how good our senior judiciary are.
Or as Lord Sumption called it the empire of law. Yes rule of law is crucial but at what point does it makes things impossible to function. And those that have access to it will always be disproportionately wealthy or knowledgeable.
I would also like to believe our judiciary are great but have an increasing sense that there are more and more activists in their number with left wing views.
I think there are more and more radical right social media accounts pushing a line imported from the US about activist judges. However, our judiciary is appointed in an entirely different way to in the US and, if anything, remain more conservative than the general population.
'More conservative than the general population.' Evidence for this? It does seem as though we are in a situation where most of the criticism of the judiciary is coming from the right and not the left. Why is this if they are generally quite conservative? And in a post Corbyn era it isn't as if the left are just dry academic bores.
Judges are more male, more white and more privately-educated than the general population, all things associated with being more conservative.
More criticism is coming from the right because the right has shifted from pro-establishment conservatism to an anti-establishment radical right stance, and the right in the UK is importing US talking points uncritically.
I think that is a poor answer. If you are concerned with background you could as easily say that most judges are privileged and we know that is associated with cultural leftism. So that's it. As for the right adopting US talking points, I'm far from convinced that the US is having that much influence on the right in this country. Decisions by judges get public attention because media sources believe conservative voters will be irked by the judge's thinking.
If anything it is the LEFT in this country that is more obviously adopting US ideas and terminology - be it trans, BLM - often without a hint of nuance, witness the BIPOC nonsense. The same things produced a backlash in the US and the same then happens here too. You seem like the classic example of the thinker who looks for evidence to support pre-determined conclusions rather than the other way around.
Anyway it is useful to engage with someone like yourself so I can be aware of the overly confident certainties of the high brow cultural elite whereas Roger represents the more middle brow version.
What is your evidence that privilege is associated with cultural leftism?
I agree that the left naively import US political ideas, just as the right do. One obvious tell is how the radical right in the UK complain about DEI, an American term that isn't used in the UK.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
One of the issues round my way is that there is a lot of nimbyism against building flats. It is probably true that a lot of big developments are sold to cash buyers renting to whores and drug dealers (or London Boroughs needing to rehouse people) so they are not going to people wanting to live in small households... but these are small town-centre sites that would be ideal for a small block of half a dozen, and probably not much else could usefully go there. Apparently we need "large family homes" although the nimbys also object when space is found to build some, and of course the planning laws make it difficult to build in penny packets.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
Jam yesterday wins no votes today. Tories will play up that it was their policies, Reform will push the record boat crossings and the very unsmashed gangs. Labour aren't winning back voters on immigration any time soon regardless of figures. The only thing that turns the good ship Davy Jones Locker for SKS is general economic joy amongst the populace or a very large Black Swan. He requires economic success as he has almost no client vote left to rely on - much of what was termed the ethnic vote is going Green or Galloway/Gaza Indies, the public sector vote is crumbling away on the QT, the WWC red wallers are all Faragists now and he's not getting reelected on the back of Emily Thornberry's Islington dinner set and human rights lawyers
Brum is a very different place to that I knew in the 80's.
It is to the one I knew in the late nineties, early 0’s. My sister is in Acocks Green not far from where the old dog track was.
It was a real eye opener when I was there for Blues last game of the season. First time I’d been to the holy ground since we lost to Preston years ago and Bowyer got sent off for nutting someone.
It wasn’t the litter but the junk dumped like mattresses and fridges, and the Palestinian flags flying everywhere.
My first ever house was on The Avenue, Acocks Green. £16,800, three bedrooms with about a 900 foot garden down to the railway line...
My sister is the other side of the Warwick Road and has the same. Her train line is the one that comes from Stratford. It merges onto the line you backed onto at Tyseley.
Also slightly odd now to think that in the years I lived there, it had a Conservative MP (Yardley - then a bellwhether constituency).
Yes it did, Brum had a fair few Tories. It was David Gilroy Bevan. My sister is not a fan of Jess Phillips who knocked her up during the last campaign and the conversation didn’t go well, mainly due to my sister wanting to get ready to go to work.
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
The same Nigel Farage who was publicly admitted large scale deportations of illegal immigrants are impossible.
The same Nigel Farage who has not as yet explained, in detail, how we are achieve the nirvana (if it is) of zero net immigration or less.
Him and those like him saying "Stop the Boats" is akin to Dick Dastardly saying "Stop that Pigeon" and they'll be about as effective.
Amazed to see not one comment about the 2 Israelis murdered this morning in Washington.
I don't mind admitting that I was politically radicalised by the reaction to the 7th October attacks. Both the support that the attacks garnered and the way a shaken Jewish population in the UK felt abandoned by the political and media establishment that was usually so keen to express its virtue.
War is an emotive issue. People here on both sides with a close connection feel abandoned by the UK political and media establishment. The reality is whatever position the UK establishment takes makes no difference to the tragic lives being lived out thousands of miles away in a conflict we have no leverage on or influence over the participants.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
What happened to the amount of people per home in that time ?
Birmingham population 1,124,995, Somali population 19,925. That's 1.77%.
🤷♂️
Unless is 11% of all Somalis in the U.K., but it does not make that clear.
Still if it is only a few thousand then that’s less pressure on social housing even if the number goes up four fold by 2031, as it did between 2011 and 2021.
We really need to build more homes.
It's saying that 11% of Somalis in the UK are in Birmingham. I agree that it is an easy to misinterpret graphic.
The problem is a lot of the official statistics are hopelessly out of date. The 2021 Census numbers for England and Wales have the two great faiths - Christianity and No Religion - dominating with 84%. 6.5% are Muslim (just under 4 million) and 6% are No Answerists. They believe refusing to answer any question is a sign of faith - Prime Ministers are often part of this group.
Do most people believe there are 4 million muslims in England and Wales? There are probably 75,000 in Newham for a start. The split is half were born here and half have come here having been born overseas.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
What happened to the amount of people per home in that time ?
Something must have driven prices up so high.
First order - BTL exploded. Govt policies were designed to boost house prices to win votes. Bank lending changes. Immigration.
Second order - AirBnB, Homes under the hammer and similar property porn, price discovery from rightmove/zoopla removing bargain spots, second/holiday homes
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
It won't win him back the Reform core vote ie about 15% who basically want no immigrants at all. However the other 10-15% now voting Reform who did not vote Reform at the last GE but Labour or Tory may start to drift back if net migration numbers continue to fall
Amazed to see not one comment about the 2 Israelis murdered this morning in Washington.
What comment do you want someone to make?
The silence speaks volumes
Go on - what is the implication you are groping for? That we are all happy that two young people have been murdered? Or something else? Make your point. Frankly its a horrific event in another country, and a country, that sadly, has more than its share of murders. If this was in London it would be a big story on PB.
So come on, make your point.
It was discussed, briefly, on the last thread. Frankly, there are a troubling number of people who don't seem to grapple with that there are very bad people on both sides of this conflict - including their leaders.
This is really the only type of defensible response. https://x.com/AOC/status/1925413229183787199 Absolutely nothing justifies the murder of innocents. I am devastated by the killing of two people outside an @AJCGlobal event here in Washington. Our prayers are with the victims, families, and loved ones of all impacted.
As we await more details, we must be clear that hatred has no home here. Antisemitism is a threat to all we hold dear as a society. It must be confronted and rooted out everywhere.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
What happened to the amount of people per home in that time ?
Something must have driven prices up so high.
Fallen from 2.51 to 2.36. The number of households roughly follows the number of houses. So Barty is correct that there is an underlying demographic demand to split into smaller households.
What I'm sceptical of is that is the reason house prices have increased so much. 400% is bonkers.
It is more than the number of new homes built in 2023 and 2024 combined.
Yes more than 1 person can live in a home, though actually over 30% of homes have only person living in them, and we have a chronic shortage already that needs addressing.
We absolutely need to address the housing shortage.
I note the average number of people per household in the UK is 2.36 (2023 figure). So divide the net immigration figure by 2.36.
182,627 houses required.
2024 Completions:
184,390
Rejoice !
Although aren't completions more likely to be flats than family homes?
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
It won't win him back the Reform core vote ie about 15% who basically want no immigrants at all. However the other 10-15% now voting Reform who did not vote Reform at the last GE but Labour or Tory may start to drift back if net migration numbers continue to fall
Credit to you for recognising that a 50% reduction in net migration in 2024 (i.e. under two governments) is not insignificant. Of course people will think that the figures are still too high, but it's weird how little credit is being given for the size of the fall.
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
I don't think the picture is that clear. For example, parties campaigning heavily on lowering immigration lost the 2024 general election.
YouGov has long-term polling on the question "Do you think the level of immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been good or bad for the country?" As of 3 days ago, that was 43% mostly bad, 28% both good and bad, and 20% mostly good. Mostly good was last ahead in March 2022.
FocalData had a big poll recently, https://www.britishfuture.org/white-paper-attitudes-research/ , which found 50% want the immigration rate reduced versus 45% increased or stay the same. Among those who want a reduction, asked for their priority in terms of the type of immigration to be reduced, they split:
Small boats 49% Claiming refugee protection 10% Overall lower 26% To study 4% To work 4%
Asked about different groups coming over, the reduce / don't reduce figures were... Doctors 17% / 77% Nurses 18% / 76% Care home workers 22% / 71% Students 29% / 65% Bankers 37% / 54%
I watched an old Louis Theroux last night, about the Westboro Baptist Church. It was the only time I've seen Louis Theroux's face look genuinely shocked - normally he holds it together incredibly well, but during the sermon where Pastor Phelps said that homosexuality was leading to people eating babies, he just couldn't do it.
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
With all due respect, that's a excessively broad generalisation. Even if only 10% of the population wanted to live in flats (and I am someone who much rather live in a central flat than a suburban house), it would still be relevant for the housing stats.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
What happened to the amount of people per home in that time ?
Something must have driven prices up so high.
Fallen from 2.51 to 2.36. The number of households roughly follows the number of houses. So Barty is correct that there is an underlying demographic demand to split into smaller households.
What I'm sceptical of is that is the reason house prices have increased so much. 400% is bonkers.
So what is it ? It is not 400% where I am. I bought my place in North Durham in 2001. Within 2 years it had, for mortgage purposes, increased by 65%, now it is probably gone up by 200% based on what others go for on the estate.
A large increase admittedly but nothing compared to other parts of,the country and from a very low base.
Birmingham population 1,124,995, Somali population 19,925. That's 1.77%.
🤷♂️
Unless is 11% of all Somalis in the U.K., but it does not make that clear.
Still if it is only a few thousand then that’s less pressure on social housing even if the number goes up four fold by 2031, as it did between 2011 and 2021.
We really need to build more homes.
It's saying that 11% of Somalis in the UK are in Birmingham. I agree that it is an easy to misinterpret graphic.
The problem is a lot of the official statistics are hopelessly out of date. The 2021 Census numbers for England and Wales have the two great faiths - Christianity and No Religion - dominating with 84%. 6.5% are Muslim (just under 4 million) and 6% are No Answerists. They believe refusing to answer any question is a sign of faith - Prime Ministers are often part of this group.
Do most people believe there are 4 million muslims in England and Wales? There are probably 75,000 in Newham for a start. The split is half were born here and half have come here having been born overseas.
If you ask people, they think there are far more than 4 million Muslims, but that's because people are generally bad on all numbers. I don't think the 2021 census data is "hopelessly" out of date.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
Interest rates are a factor. The value of a property from first principles equals the PV in perpetuity of the rental income. The PV multiplier is inversely correlated to the prevailing interest rate. So lower rates mean higher prices.
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
With all due respect, that's a excessively broad generalisation. Even if only 10% of the population wanted to live in flats (and I am someone who much rather live in a central flat than a suburban house), it would still be relevant for the housing stats.
Population has gone up by nearly 20%, while houses have gone up by less than 10%, at a time when demographics is reducing population per home so we should be increasing houses faster than population.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
What happened to the amount of people per home in that time ?
Something must have driven prices up so high.
Fallen from 2.51 to 2.36. The number of households roughly follows the number of houses. So Barty is correct that there is an underlying demographic demand to split into smaller households.
What I'm sceptical of is that is the reason house prices have increased so much. 400% is bonkers.
So what is it ? It is not 400% where I am. I bought my place in North Durham in 2001. Within 2 years it had, for mortgage purposes, increased by 65%, now it is probably gone up by 200% based on what others go for on the estate.
A large increase admittedly but nothing compared to other parts of,the country and from a very low base.
My house in North Newcastle bought in 2018 is pretty much worth the same in real terms as it was then
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
What's interesting about that is the HPI for flats has kept pace with that for detached houses over that period. Given that data suggests many more flats than houses were built, it looks like demand for flats was significantly higher.
Including flats doesn't change the data that much.
From 2004 - 2021 the population of England and Wales has increased by almost 20%, while the number of houses and flats combined has increased by only 15%, a considerable shortfall.
And that at a time when demographics are meaning fewer people per home.
But its noteworthy that not only has housing not kept up with population in that time, disproportionately far fewer actual houses have been built. The dwelling count is getting inflated with flats, but even then it doesn't keep track with population.
🚨BREAKING: Huge dust cloud over North London as Stadium cleaners opened the trophy cabinet in preparation for the arrival on the Europa League tomorrow 🏆
All flights to/from Luton tomorrow are CANCELLED, major disruption to Heathrow & London City expected all day.
I'm surprised the smallest club in London has room for a cabinet. I expected a trophy shoebox
I saw the story about chemical castration for serious sex offenders and noted that one of the two drugs that it is suggested are used are SSRIs. Each year about 20% of British adults are prescribed SSRIs for anxiety and depression.
This might be a neglected part of the explanation for tumbling fertility rates.
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
I don't think the picture is that clear. For example, parties campaigning heavily on lowering immigration lost the 2024 general election.
YouGov has long-term polling on the question "Do you think the level of immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been good or bad for the country?" As of 3 days ago, that was 43% mostly bad, 28% both good and bad, and 20% mostly good. Mostly good was last ahead in March 2022.
FocalData had a big poll recently, https://www.britishfuture.org/white-paper-attitudes-research/ , which found 50% want the immigration rate reduced versus 45% increased or stay the same. Among those who want a reduction, asked for their priority in terms of the type of immigration to be reduced, they split:
Small boats 49% Claiming refugee protection 10% Overall lower 26% To study 4% To work 4%
Asked about different groups coming over, the reduce / don't reduce figures were... Doctors 17% / 77% Nurses 18% / 76% Care home workers 22% / 71% Students 29% / 65% Bankers 37% / 54%
Other job categories at the URL above.
The reality is that the public is split, pretty evenly.The usual Tory/Reform self-image is for of speaking for everyone.
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
I don't think the picture is that clear. For example, parties campaigning heavily on lowering immigration lost the 2024 general election.
YouGov has long-term polling on the question "Do you think the level of immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been good or bad for the country?" As of 3 days ago, that was 43% mostly bad, 28% both good and bad, and 20% mostly good. Mostly good was last ahead in March 2022.
FocalData had a big poll recently, https://www.britishfuture.org/white-paper-attitudes-research/ , which found 50% want the immigration rate reduced versus 45% increased or stay the same. Among those who want a reduction, asked for their priority in terms of the type of immigration to be reduced, they split:
Small boats 49% Claiming refugee protection 10% Overall lower 26% To study 4% To work 4%
Asked about different groups coming over, the reduce / don't reduce figures were... Doctors 17% / 77% Nurses 18% / 76% Care home workers 22% / 71% Students 29% / 65% Bankers 37% / 54%
Other job categories at the URL above.
The reality is that the public is split, pretty evenly.The usual Tory/Reform self-image is for of speaking for everyone.
It isn't Starmer's pivot that will gain him votes but the raw numbers and the fact the data out today shows net migration to the UK halved last year will be a big boost to the Labour government when taking on Farage.
In reality of course the cut is down to Rishi and Cleverly and their tightening of the rules around visa wage requirements and dependents brought in. Whether Kemi gets much credit remains to be seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr4zzvq2p33t
I think I've said it before, but cutting immigration from a very large number to a slight smaller very large number is not going to win him much love from anyone.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me". Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
I don't think the picture is that clear. For example, parties campaigning heavily on lowering immigration lost the 2024 general election.
YouGov has long-term polling on the question "Do you think the level of immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been good or bad for the country?" As of 3 days ago, that was 43% mostly bad, 28% both good and bad, and 20% mostly good. Mostly good was last ahead in March 2022.
FocalData had a big poll recently, https://www.britishfuture.org/white-paper-attitudes-research/ , which found 50% want the immigration rate reduced versus 45% increased or stay the same. Among those who want a reduction, asked for their priority in terms of the type of immigration to be reduced, they split:
Small boats 49% Claiming refugee protection 10% Overall lower 26% To study 4% To work 4%
Asked about different groups coming over, the reduce / don't reduce figures were... Doctors 17% / 77% Nurses 18% / 76% Care home workers 22% / 71% Students 29% / 65% Bankers 37% / 54%
Other job categories at the URL above.
Because people just wanted to get rid of the Tories in 2024.
Including flats doesn't change the data that much.
From 2004 - 2021 the population of England and Wales has increased by almost 20%, while the number of houses and flats combined has increased by only 15%, a considerable shortfall.
And that at a time when demographics are meaning fewer people per home.
But its noteworthy that not only has housing not kept up with population in that time, disproportionately far fewer actual houses have been built. The dwelling count is getting inflated with flats, but even then it doesn't keep track with population.
The population of England and Wales grew by 12% over that period. I get 14% for housing.
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
With all due respect, that's a excessively broad generalisation. Even if only 10% of the population wanted to live in flats (and I am someone who much rather live in a central flat than a suburban house), it would still be relevant for the housing stats.
If there's latent demand for houses then building flats won't decrease house prices. It would reduce flat prices, but the price of houses would be pretty much unchanged if you have lots of people living in flats wanting to move to a house (as does seem to be the case).
Demand mainly driven by rising immigration then, without that the below replacement UK fertility rate means we would have had more than enough houses to meet demand
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
What's interesting about that is the HPI for flats has kept pace with that for detached houses over that period. Given that data suggests many more flats than houses were built, it looks like demand for flats was significantly higher.
Or that people who would previously have been able to get a house have had to get a flat instead as that's all they could afford.
Demand mainly driven by rising immigration then, without that the below replacement UK fertility rate means we would have had more than enough houses to meet demand
Except for 2020 births exceeded deaths every year in that period.
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
With all due respect, that's a excessively broad generalisation. Even if only 10% of the population wanted to live in flats (and I am someone who much rather live in a central flat than a suburban house), it would still be relevant for the housing stats.
If there's latent demand for houses then building flats won't decrease house prices. It would reduce flat prices, but the price of houses would be pretty much unchanged if you have lots of people living in flats wanting to move to a house (as does seem to be the case).
I don't think that's true because houses and flats are complimentary products. Demand is not identical, but they will both influence each other. So you might prefer a house, but if a flat is available for (say) I've quarter of the price, then you'll choose the flat and pocket the difference.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
Interest rates are a factor. The value of a property from first principles equals the PV in perpetuity of the rental income. The PV multiplier is inversely correlated to the prevailing interest rate. So lower rates mean higher prices.
This is very true: the problem then occurs when interest rates rise
I expect that a combination of rises in the number of households (driven by population and demographic change), falling real interest rates and rising household income / general inflation probably explains 100% of house price moves since the 1990s.
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
With all due respect, that's a excessively broad generalisation. Even if only 10% of the population wanted to live in flats (and I am someone who much rather live in a central flat than a suburban house), it would still be relevant for the housing stats.
If there's latent demand for houses then building flats won't decrease house prices. It would reduce flat prices, but the price of houses would be pretty much unchanged if you have lots of people living in flats wanting to move to a house (as does seem to be the case).
I don't think that's true because houses and flats are complimentary products. Demand is not identical, but they will both influence each other. So you might prefer a house, but if a flat is available for (say) I've quarter of the price, then you'll choose the flat and pocket the difference.
It's like butter and margarine: I much prefer butter, but I'm not completely price insensitive: if butter cost 10x margarine, I'd probably eat more margarine and less butter.
Here's a mystery for PB: we're currently under a housing "crisis", with young people unable to get on the housing ladder even while average household spending on housing is the lowest since the 80s. There is massive controversy about plastering the countryside with new build detached housing.
Yet here, a 10-minute cycle from the centre of one of the UK's biggest cities, 5 minutes from a beautiful park, some of the best infrastructure you'll find anywhere in the UK, a waterfront location with a tall ship, you find this:
The average household spending on housing has been remarkably stable, its not fallen, but that average is warped by significant amounts paying £0 towards rent and mortgage, and significant amounts paying almost half their income towards it.
House price to earnings ratios are a better indicator on costs, and they are much worse than they were in the 1990s.
Getting house price to earnings ratios back to 1990s levels will require mammoth construction outstripping increases in demand.
In addition, we could limit multiples on mortgages, or get housewives back in the kitchen, or halve housing benefit, to dampen demand; or increase supply by banning second and holiday homes or get jobs back in the left-behind towns so people want to move there. These are not all serious policy proposals but they do illustrate the housing cost crisis has several moving parts.
Eliminating landlord benefit would neither change the housing stock nor change the numbers of people chasing such stock......
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Except for the fact, as repeatedly demonstrated to you, that supply has not kept up with population.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
Have another attempt at reading my post.
OK.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
I think you've just got so used to disagreeing with me on this you've lost the ability to read.
If by "when supply has kept up with population" you did not mean that "supply has kept up with population" then I take back my criticism that supply has not kept up with population.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I actually agree, I just don't think it's going to have the affect on property prices that you think it will. It will require some other intervention.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
Interest rates are a factor. The value of a property from first principles equals the PV in perpetuity of the rental income. The PV multiplier is inversely correlated to the prevailing interest rate. So lower rates mean higher prices.
This is very true: the problem then occurs when interest rates rise
Also the micro theory doesn't map that brilliantly into macro practice when it comes to residential property. Prices do not seem to have fallen in the way they 'should' have done with interest rates going from near zero to 5% in the last few years. Something is propping up this technically overvalued asset class.
I expect that a combination of rises in the number of households (driven by population and demographic change), falling real interest rates and household income / general inflation probably explains 100% of house price moves since the 1990s.
I think you also need to include the impact of stamp duty in discouraging trading down (which is why we have a record number of empty bedrooms at the same time as housing shortages). One also shouldn't underestimate one particular part of demographic changes: that of people living alone for reasons other than being widowed. Back in 1980, single households under 60 were something like 2% of households - now they're 10x that.
Birmingham population 1,124,995, Somali population 19,925. That's 1.77%.
🤷♂️
Unless is 11% of all Somalis in the U.K., but it does not make that clear.
Still if it is only a few thousand then that’s less pressure on social housing even if the number goes up four fold by 2031, as it did between 2011 and 2021.
We really need to build more homes.
It's saying that 11% of Somalis in the UK are in Birmingham. I agree that it is an easy to misinterpret graphic.
The problem is a lot of the official statistics are hopelessly out of date. The 2021 Census numbers for England and Wales have the two great faiths - Christianity and No Religion - dominating with 84%. 6.5% are Muslim (just under 4 million) and 6% are No Answerists. They believe refusing to answer any question is a sign of faith - Prime Ministers are often part of this group.
Do most people believe there are 4 million muslims in England and Wales? There are probably 75,000 in Newham for a start. The split is half were born here and half have come here having been born overseas.
If you ask people, they think there are far more than 4 million Muslims, but that's because people are generally bad on all numbers. I don't think the 2021 census data is "hopelessly" out of date.
You should probably include flats too, because they are places for people to live in.
Not really, because the overwhelming majority of the country does not want to live in flats, they want to live in houses.
And houses has not kept up with population.
With all due respect, that's a excessively broad generalisation. Even if only 10% of the population wanted to live in flats (and I am someone who much rather live in a central flat than a suburban house), it would still be relevant for the housing stats.
If there's latent demand for houses then building flats won't decrease house prices. It would reduce flat prices, but the price of houses would be pretty much unchanged if you have lots of people living in flats wanting to move to a house (as does seem to be the case).
I don't think that's true because houses and flats are complimentary products. Demand is not identical, but they will both influence each other. So you might prefer a house, but if a flat is available for (say) I've quarter of the price, then you'll choose the flat and pocket the difference.
Most people (of which you are not one) are in the position of buying the home that they can afford, rather than the one they want. If that's a flat, they will buy a flat, and hope to move to a house later. If they can afford a house then they will do so.
This is why the amount of money banks are willing and able to lend has such a bearing on house prices. It's a very different market to butter and margarine.
I expect that a combination of rises in the number of households (driven by population and demographic change), falling real interest rates and household income / general inflation probably explains 100% of house price moves since the 1990s.
I think you also need to include the impact of stamp duty in discouraging trading down (which is why we have a record number of empty bedrooms at the same time as housing shortages). One also shouldn't underestimate one particular part of demographic changes: that of people living alone for reasons other than being widowed. Back in 1980, single households under 60 were something like 2% of households - now they're 10x that.
Yes if we went back to Ireland pre 1995 laws ie where divorce was illegal, while increasing child benefit and marriage tax allowance then the number of single households would likely collapse.
Comments
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Demographics have something to do with it. More divorces, more single person households - that's undoubtedly true. I think there is a cultural shift as well, with more single young people wanting to live alone. I think we should build to facilitate that, but also provide tax incentives for people to move into housing that better fits their household composition (downsizing into flats).
But that alone cannot explain a doubling in the house price:income ratio since the 1970s. It's not just a demand for housing that determines price, but a demand for a safe store of wealth. Housing is both safe and subject to significant tax advantages. It's almost unbeatable as an investment. I suspect removing those tax breaks and even inverting them would dramatically alter the ratio.
Starmers problem here is that nobody is going to vote Labour because he paid Mauritius to take it, many will shrug but to a sizeable minority who think the guy is working against this country's interests its more evidence. No gain but a lot of pain from those who do care. And the financial details will now come out as he expects MPs to vote on tipping the disabled out of their chairs and telling them to get a job because we can't afford to look after them.
In other news I got my migration letter today to go onto the shitty UC. Thanks Tories for introducing that turd.
Ageing demographics make smaller household sizes inevitable. Older people don't have their grown up children or great grand children living with them.
No, but there is something else going on other than a lack of overall supply, made obvious when supply has kept up with population.
Except supply has not kept up with population. Oh dear.
All flights to/from Luton tomorrow are CANCELLED, major disruption to Heathrow & London City expected all day.
The country at large clearly wants zero net immigration or less - people consistently vote for less immigration every time they are offered it.
Starmer is far too unambiguous and far to much a human rights lawyer to do what is necessary to get it down to anything approaching an acceptable level.
Meanwhile, he, (like Kemi) keeps making the same essential argument on immigration "Nigel is right, so vote for me".
Sorry guys, I'm voting for Nigel.
We do need a considerable increase in supply.
I agree that the left naively import US political ideas, just as the right do. One obvious tell is how the radical right in the UK complain about DEI, an American term that isn't used in the UK.
1993 - 2023, 26% increase in the number of houses, 19% increase in population. House prices went up 400% over that period, with the income:price ratio growing from 3.1 to 8.5.
The only thing that turns the good ship Davy Jones Locker for SKS is general economic joy amongst the populace or a very large Black Swan. He requires economic success as he has almost no client vote left to rely on - much of what was termed the ethnic vote is going Green or Galloway/Gaza Indies, the public sector vote is crumbling away on the QT, the WWC red wallers are all Faragists now and he's not getting reelected on the back of Emily Thornberry's Islington dinner set and human rights lawyers
The same Nigel Farage who has not as yet explained, in detail, how we are achieve the nirvana (if it is) of zero net immigration or less.
Him and those like him saying "Stop the Boats" is akin to Dick Dastardly saying "Stop that Pigeon" and they'll be about as effective.
Something must have driven prices up so high.
Do most people believe there are 4 million muslims in England and Wales? There are probably 75,000 in Newham for a start. The split is half were born here and half have come here having been born overseas.
Second order - AirBnB, Homes under the hammer and similar property porn, price discovery from rightmove/zoopla removing bargain spots, second/holiday homes
Frankly, there are a troubling number of people who don't seem to grapple with that there are very bad people on both sides of this conflict - including their leaders.
This is really the only type of defensible response.
https://x.com/AOC/status/1925413229183787199
Absolutely nothing justifies the murder of innocents. I am devastated by the killing of two people outside an @AJCGlobal event here in Washington. Our prayers are with the victims, families, and loved ones of all impacted.
As we await more details, we must be clear that hatred has no home here. Antisemitism is a threat to all we hold dear as a society. It must be confronted and rooted out everywhere.
What I'm sceptical of is that is the reason house prices have increased so much. 400% is bonkers.
From 2004 - 2023 the total of bungalow, terraced, semi-detached and detached houses grew from 18.1m to 19.8m, a 9.4% increase.
Between 2004 to 2021 house price to median income ratio rose from 3.89 to 8.14
Supply has not kept up with demand, which is why prices have risen.
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/614c2ff4e90e077a3078f8fc/CTSOP3.0_time_series.xlsx
Of course people will think that the figures are still too high, but it's weird how little credit is being given for the size of the fall.
And houses has not kept up with population.
https://www.ft.com/content/475e9325-1317-4194-a00e-63b6162f06ac
YouGov has long-term polling on the question "Do you think the level of immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been good or bad for the country?" As of 3 days ago, that was 43% mostly bad, 28% both good and bad, and 20% mostly good. Mostly good was last ahead in March 2022.
FocalData had a big poll recently, https://www.britishfuture.org/white-paper-attitudes-research/ , which found 50% want the immigration rate reduced versus 45% increased or stay the same. Among those who want a reduction, asked for their priority in terms of the type of immigration to be reduced, they split:
Small boats 49%
Claiming refugee protection 10%
Overall lower 26%
To study 4%
To work 4%
Asked about different groups coming over, the reduce / don't reduce figures were...
Doctors 17% / 77%
Nurses 18% / 76%
Care home workers 22% / 71%
Students 29% / 65%
Bankers 37% / 54%
Other job categories at the URL above.
A large increase admittedly but nothing compared to other parts of,the country and from a very low base.
The result is inevitable. So prices have surged.
Others talk. Starmer does.
From 2004 - 2021 the population of England and Wales has increased by almost 20%, while the number of houses and flats combined has increased by only 15%, a considerable shortfall.
And that at a time when demographics are meaning fewer people per home.
But its noteworthy that not only has housing not kept up with population in that time, disproportionately far fewer actual houses have been built. The dwelling count is getting inflated with flats, but even then it doesn't keep track with population.
This might be a neglected part of the explanation for tumbling fertility rates.
Other times of the year, the Puffin's bill is much reduced (and without the bright colour).
(Check your AI).
Never been able to put my finger on why, but his voice and manner grate.
*This was when a medical student acts up as a qualified doctor, without prescription rights. I think they have ceased now.
4% is only 0.5% over inflation, and less than the average wage rise in the UK but I will vote to accept.
This is why the amount of money banks are willing and able to lend has such a bearing on house prices. It's a very different market to butter and margarine.
Some folk we just have really poor karma with.
For me, it's Michael McIntyre.
Cannot abide the bloke.
Not that the former will happen here