The housing 'discourse' gets pretty heated. Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
My renting life is now on the verge of eclipsing my non-renting life: I have been paying monthly rent for 17 years. As a millennial, I am of the first major generation to get to this age and not be even close to a mortgage, and it’s not just me being a bit all over the place and bad at credit cards. To crib stats from a new book, All The Houses I’ve Ever Lived In, by Kieran Yates: “In the 1980s, it would have taken a typical couple in their late twenties around three years to save for an average-sized deposit. Today, it would take 19.”
And so I continue to live in a very strange mezzanine flat with a tin foil-effect, orange, dappled wall we are not allowed to paint over, praying they don’t raise the rent next year because there’s not much further east in this city I can go.
Problems with the housing system in this country track straight back to Thatcher’s “Right To Buy” Housing Act in the Eighties, which offered such irresistible purchase terms to council tenants that a huge amount of the country’s public housing stock went private almost overnight, and there it has stayed. We are not building enough homes, and the ones we are building very often loophole their way around the wet tissue paper of affordable housing regulation, to create stacks of dizzyingly expensive grey newbuilds — often over the exact same spot where thriving community blocks once stood.
A buy-to-let boom in the early Aughts winnowed the housing stock even further, and now look where we are: people are queuing for rental viewings, outbidding one another on houses for sale, writing earnest letters about how wholesomely they will live there. Housing prices stay high and stable, justifying the mythical “market rate” — a number made up, and reinvented every six weeks, by estate agents — which means rents go up in turn, which means people renting save less, which means their buying power diminishes even further. Then came the pandemic. I don’t know a single person whose rent hasn’t gone up since, and gone up drastically.
So those are some of the problems. But the main one is inter-generational communication. It’s in the mud. How do you explain to a generation who saved for a deposit for three years that cutting back on brunch isn’t going to be enough? All The Houses I’ve Ever Lived In threatens, at least, to close that communication gap. Like me, Yates has lived in a lot of buildings (25, to my lowly 13): flats, houses, temporary accommodation, studios above car showrooms. Like me, Yates has written a lot about housing — as well as youth culture, politics, and music (an early chapter details how the thin walls of the since-demolished Green Man Lane estate meant you learned about music based on what your neighbours like listening to). Unlike me, Yates maintains her cool. I recently ruined a polite lunch with an elderly relative with one of my “landlords are scum” tirades, which went on far too long and changed absolutely no one’s mind.
Renting used to be a viable way to exist in this country. Figure out which parts of the city or country you actually like. Have 10 housemates and live on the cheap and pursue something dumb and creative for a couple of years. Don’t move in with that boyfriend you’re not sure about just because your tenancy agreements are both up at more-or-less the same time. It now just means paying the most money you’ve ever paid for anything, every single month, for something that mostly sucks and is actively stopping you getting on the fabled British dream, the housing ladder. And then you get an e-mail in January saying: rent’s going up again.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSo much wrong with this article.
Yes, unaffordable housing in the UK is a disaster, both immediately for younger people and for all of us eventually. But there is little unique about the UK here – this is all across the developed world.
But we won’t get anywhere if the recalled “facts” and analysis are so wide of the mark.
Right to Buy is not the reason for high house prices. House prices are ridiculously high in countries where there was no right to buy.
But to Let does not of itself affect the housing stock. It just changes the ownership. I’m surprised this needs saying. In a normal market, the increased demand it indicates would also increase supply. But UK housing isn’t a normal market.
People with mortgages face similar risks of eviction/repossion as renters. Entirely possible we’re heading for an early 90s style rise in repossessions – there are certainly a lot of people on interest only mortgages with no obvious means to repay their enornmous loans. Those who felt obliged to buy into a grossly inflated housing market may be just as much victims as renters. That’s happened before.
The reason we tolerate all this is not because “the system is working so well for a privileged few”. It’s because it’s believed (incorrectly in my view) to be working well for a majority of those who get off their backsides and vote.
Rent controls simply don’t work. Enough evidence from around the world here. Further experiments are uneccesary and won’t help.
Finally, the elephant in the room. No mention at all of the effect of an increasing population on the demand for housing – and the consequent inflation of housing prices – both for renters and those who buy houses.
When are these young people going to learn about the law of supply and demand ? It’s hardly rocket science.
There’s an important article to be written here on housing and the appalling impact this must be having on young people. But sadly, this isn’t it.
Spot on. The London commuter town I live in has grown hugely in the 20 years I’ve lived here. We are building a lot of houses, but can’t keep pace with the influx.
I’d also query whether being unable to afford a flat of your own after 17 years in the job market doesn’t say more about career progression than housing.
Ouch!
Please!That last comment is so snide and petty, effectively implying that only certain people who have “succeeded” in a career (and good job not everyone does by the way – we don’t want the entire world in middle management!) deserves secure housing.
There is a certain kind of smug middle class person who convinces themselves that they did it purely by talent and hard work and that the younger generation are so some bizarre reason as a group lazy, feckless and pampered, which is vanishingly unlikely to be the case. We have clear structural reasons why we have the situation we do, and endless cheering on house price Inflation by the ‘haves’ is at least part of this.
There is also a ‘certain kind of smug middle class person’ who convinces themselves that what the world needs is more people in traditional middle class roles when what we actually need is technologists, plumbers and bricklayers. If you want to be a writer then fine – but you have to accept the poverty which, for all but the most talented of scribblers, comes with the lifestyle.
The point is about personal responsibility. If the job you’re in doesn’t pay enough to rent a small place of your own, and doesn’t have any prospects of doing so, then get a different job. If you want to sit still for 17 years that’s your choice.
As others point out, it is possible to buy a house in different parts of the country and there are well paid jobs available. If you want to be a hip Vice journalist in London, fine, but take what comes with it.
I certainly don’t think the younger generation is lazy or feckless. I think they have it harder than my generation but you can only play the cards you’re dealt. My comment is on this particular author, who doesn’t seem willing to make personal changes to address his situation.
If you disagree, just disagree. There is no need to impute negative character traits to somebody you know nothing about.
That may work individually, however there simply aren’t enough jobs in the cheaper regions of the country to support a mass exodus of youngsters moving there so it isn’t a solution at a national level. When an ever increasing number of jobs are becoming concentrated in the south east, it’s a bit daft to tell all the youngsters to move up north
That may work individually, however there simply aren’t enough jobs in the cheaper regions of the country to support a mass exodus of youngsters moving there so it isn’t a solution at a national level. When an ever increasing number of jobs are becoming concentrated in the south east, it’s a bit daft to tell all the youngsters to move up north
There is also a ‘certain kind of smug middle class person’ who convinces themselves that what the world needs is more people in traditional middle class roles when what we actually need is technologists, plumbers and bricklayers. If you want to be a writer then fine – but you have to accept the poverty which, for all but the most talented of scribblers, comes with the lifestyle.
The point is about personal responsibility. If the job you’re in doesn’t pay enough to rent a small place of your own, and doesn’t have any prospects of doing so, then get a different job. If you want to sit still for 17 years that’s your choice.
As others point out, it is possible to buy a house in different parts of the country and there are well paid jobs available. If you want to be a hip Vice journalist in London, fine, but take what comes with it.
I certainly don’t think the younger generation is lazy or feckless. I think they have it harder than my generation but you can only play the cards you’re dealt. My comment is on this particular author, who doesn’t seem willing to make personal changes to address his situation.
If you disagree, just disagree. There is no need to impute negative character traits to somebody you know nothing about.
I have a lot of sympathy with people in the author’s position and I wouldn’t assume that his predicament means he’s not good at his job. Most jobs simply don’t and cannot pay enough to buy housing now.
Geography plays a huge role in this.
I’m close to paying off my mortgage in a moderate sized town in the north. I had the opportunity to transfer to Cambridge with a very sizable pay rise. However, looking at the cost of a similar house in the area, it would have been a significant reduction in disposable income. Ostensibly my home was going from ~3* salary to ~10*. That isn’t a good deal.
This is a substantial part of the UK’s economic woes where we’ve moved so much of our industry and commerce to a small number of locations. The bright lights attract people (particularly university graduates) but they’re a lure, (or noob trap to use gaming vernacular).
I know a few people with good jobs struggling to get on the property ladder and it’s down the industries they work and the locations they are in. I know others with less well paid jobs getting by just – again, because of where they’re located.
So, as far as this story is concerned, I think two things are true at the same time.
Government, and local, policy and corporate behaviour are super heating the economies of major cities and regions (particularly London and the SE).Individuals are making poor choices about the careers, locations and lifestyles they wish to pursue.
Absolutely. If jobs were better distributed then people would be too, and house prices in the south would reduce. But, and ther’e always a but in this, young people want to move to large conurbations, and particularly to London, because that’s where the jobs are (at least for graduates), and high value jobs go to those areas because that’s were the trained people are – and so it goes round. The only way to break this vicious cycle is social engineering, and that always works so well.
It’s not just about the jobs.
Some people just like living in cities, because the density means you have a wider range of experiences on your doorstep.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/change-my-mind-density-increases
It’s not just about the jobs.
Some people just like living in cities, because the density means you have a wider range of experiences on your doorstep.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/change-my-mind-density-increases
Absolutely. If jobs were better distributed then people would be too, and house prices in the south would reduce. But, and ther’e always a but in this, young people want to move to large conurbations, and particularly to London, because that’s where the jobs are (at least for graduates), and high value jobs go to those areas because that’s were the trained people are – and so it goes round. The only way to break this vicious cycle is social engineering, and that always works so well.
Same in my area. No extra facilities and infrastructure, though.
Ouch!
Please!That last comment is so snide and petty, effectively implying that only certain people who have “succeeded” in a career (and good job not everyone does by the way – we don’t want the entire world in middle management!) deserves secure housing.
There is a certain kind of smug middle class person who convinces themselves that they did it purely by talent and hard work and that the younger generation are so some bizarre reason as a group lazy, feckless and pampered, which is vanishingly unlikely to be the case. We have clear structural reasons why we have the situation we do, and endless cheering on house price Inflation by the ‘haves’ is at least part of this.
I have a lot of sympathy with people in the author’s position and I wouldn’t assume that his predicament means he’s not good at his job. Most jobs simply don’t and cannot pay enough to buy housing now.
Geography plays a huge role in this.
I’m close to paying off my mortgage in a moderate sized town in the north. I had the opportunity to transfer to Cambridge with a very sizable pay rise. However, looking at the cost of a similar house in the area, it would have been a significant reduction in disposable income. Ostensibly my home was going from ~3* salary to ~10*. That isn’t a good deal.
This is a substantial part of the UK’s economic woes where we’ve moved so much of our industry and commerce to a small number of locations. The bright lights attract people (particularly university graduates) but they’re a lure, (or noob trap to use gaming vernacular).
I know a few people with good jobs struggling to get on the property ladder and it’s down the industries they work and the locations they are in. I know others with less well paid jobs getting by just – again, because of where they’re located.
So, as far as this story is concerned, I think two things are true at the same time.
Government, and local, policy and corporate behaviour are super heating the economies of major cities and regions (particularly London and the SE).Individuals are making poor choices about the careers, locations and lifestyles they wish to pursue.
Same in my area. No extra facilities and infrastructure, though.
The laws of supply and demand that you feel are so obvious, imply that you feel the market is a free one. It has been the absolute imperative of a succession of governments (here in the Uk and as you correctly point out in other countries) to artificially keep house prices high through a multitude of shenanigans. Why? because then the asset owners will vote for them.
There is nothing free market about this, and hence appealing to the ‘law’ of supply and demand is nonsensical.
I think Peter is saying when you have massive demand (500k immigrants a year) and low supply (200k new dwellings built a year) that law of supply and demand dictates prices will go up.
The law remains constant. You can either increase supply (notoriously difficult because people vigorously oppose new development near them) or reduce demand (possible now we are out of the EU but still the government resists capping immigration at a sensible level). I would suggest they cap total net immigration at half the number of new dwellings completed in the previous year. So the 2023 cap would be 115k – which is still a lot of foreign workers.
That the author of the article doesn’t mention immigration at all is mind-boggling.
Mind boggling indeed but very telling.It’s stil politically incorrect to mention overpopulation as the cause of anything, like global warming for instance. Overpopulation and religions are intertwined, but are the elephants in the room as far as the media goes. Muslims have guilt-tripped people into silence. It’s a religion that’s heavily into control and knows how to use it to silence critics. There is, of course the fear factor of speaking out because you might get killed for so doing. A valid concern.Of course catholicism isn’t much better as far as uncontrolled breeding goes but the younger generation may eased up a bit. Fundamentalism likes to take the bible literally when, way back then, someone supposedly said “go forth and multiply’. So they’re still at it regardless of how unsustainable it makes life on this planet for the rest of us.
But is it overpopulation or simply a shortage of accommodation? These people have to live somewhere.
Aren’t they two sides of the same coin?
In 2021 there were 28k more people born in England and Wales than died. If immigration was zero (which I’m not suggesting) we would need to build very few new homes each year to house our population.
Surely we can cap immigration at a sensible number that relieves the strain on housing, public services and infrastructure while still bringing in essential workers.
I keep reading about all the empty homes going to rack and ruin. Why doesn’t the government compulsory purchase and renovate them and add them to the available housing stock?
It’s a reasonable idea. There are lots of good ideas in these comments. But the thing that is going to reduce house price inflation the most is reducing demand by reducing immigration numbers.
I think the party wins that moves first on a policy of:
“we will to continue to build 200k new houses a year and we will keep net immigration to 100k a year until a house of your own is affordable for every working British couple.”
And the demand of the super rich needs to be curbed and more quotas for affordable housing enforced.
‘In the last 20 years there has been no region of England where there was a net shortage in dwellings, and every region has seen its surplus building stock grow since 2001’
https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-houses/#:~:text=In%20both%202001%20and%202011,the%201.4%20million%20in%202021.
Remember: this wealthy elite do very well out of you thinking that it’s (unplatformed) immigrants stoking the demand and not them, whose interests are nicely looked after by media empires sowing division between working people below just trying to have enough to get by on.
And the demand of the super rich needs to be curbed and more quotas for affordable housing enforced.
‘In the last 20 years there has been no region of England where there was a net shortage in dwellings, and every region has seen its surplus building stock grow since 2001’
https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-houses/#:~:text=In%20both%202001%20and%202011,the%201.4%20million%20in%202021.
Remember: this wealthy elite do very well out of you thinking that it’s (unplatformed) immigrants stoking the demand and not them, whose interests are nicely looked after by media empires sowing division between working people below just trying to have enough to get by on.
Because it’s almost always cheaper and quicker to build new than to renovate old.
It’s a reasonable idea. There are lots of good ideas in these comments. But the thing that is going to reduce house price inflation the most is reducing demand by reducing immigration numbers.
I think the party wins that moves first on a policy of:
“we will to continue to build 200k new houses a year and we will keep net immigration to 100k a year until a house of your own is affordable for every working British couple.”
Because it’s almost always cheaper and quicker to build new than to renovate old.
There are no essential workers produced outside the UK that couldn’t be found by training people born in the UK.
Most of the “essential workers” who migrate to the UK are ethnic cooks.
I keep reading about all the empty homes going to rack and ruin. Why doesn’t the government compulsory purchase and renovate them and add them to the available housing stock?
There are no essential workers produced outside the UK that couldn’t be found by training people born in the UK.
Most of the “essential workers” who migrate to the UK are ethnic cooks.
Aren’t they two sides of the same coin?
In 2021 there were 28k more people born in England and Wales than died. If immigration was zero (which I’m not suggesting) we would need to build very few new homes each year to house our population.
Surely we can cap immigration at a sensible number that relieves the strain on housing, public services and infrastructure while still bringing in essential workers.
Well said Ms Knight. There is hope after all!
“Ever sperm is sacred “ as they say!
But is it overpopulation or simply a shortage of accommodation? These people have to live somewhere.
Well said Ms Knight. There is hope after all!
“Ever sperm is sacred “ as they say!
Fine- clearly that excess demand (if we believe your figures) does not help the balance, but to say that the problems with housing in the UK is mainly the result of immigrants is ludicrous.
What the author of the article is trying to point out is two key things. 1) there has been a boom in post 1970’s asset prices unseen for centuries, that despite a few nasty corrections has been on a relentless upward path due to the flood of cheap money and financial deregulation. At the same time there has been a brutal subjugation of the bargaining power of labour and hence real wages have stagnated. This is how we come to the situation wherein (as the author points out) in 1980 you had to save your wage for 3 years whereas now you have to save for 19 years! This has nothing to do with immigration. This is a well engineered wealth transfer from labour towards capital.
2) in addition to the above the author points out the deeply unfair lack of regulation of the rental sector. This lack of regulation is what makes buy to let so attractive as it reduces the financial burden imposed on landlords. As a result a whole class of rentiers bids up housing stock, as the profit margins (due to lack of regulations and cheap money) are so attractive. Peter completely misunderstands this point. To say that buy to let is simply taking housing stock and giving it a different owner misunderstands how markets work. All markets involve the change of owner. That is what a market is. But the key point is when there are more people chasing an asset the price of that asset is pushed up. Due to the attractiveness of buy to let as a money making enterprise houses become more expensive than they would have been. Essentially a whole new class of demand for houses is created by making it attractive financially. That is a pure political decision. Taxes and regulation could easily be increased so that buy to let is unattractive. This would remove this artificial class of demand and allow lower prices for people who actually need somewhere to live
I read this article on the same day that the Telegraph had an article suggesting that net migration might reach 1M this year.
Whilst I agree with some of your comments about buy to let – it is inequitable that finance costs receive 20% relief for a BTL owner but not for a ‘normal’ purchase – your comment about immigrants is ludicrous itself. According to the HoC library nearly 16M people in the UK are either foreign nationals or were born abroad. More pertinently for the author of the article – 37% of the population of London were born outside the UK. Are you seriously suggesting this hasn’t had an impact on the availabilty and cost of housing?
Not at all- as the beginning of my above comment clearly states- it is a factor. But it is far from the main factor. One study from the ministry of housing put it at 20% contribution during a period when house prices had increased 320%. An Oxford study put immigration as the difference between a 10fold increase and a 9fold increase.
it is very telling that amongst these comments anyone who states immigration is the serious cause of house price increases gets many upvotes. But it is a small factor amongst many much more important ones.
Are you seriously suggesting that a ministry of housing study is going to be honest about the influence of migration on housing?
The ministry of housing is a branch of the same government which under both Left and Right has allowed and encouraged high migration levels since 1945.
Immigration is the MAIN factor. For 70 years.
Are you seriously suggesting that a ministry of housing study is going to be honest about the influence of migration on housing?
The ministry of housing is a branch of the same government which under both Left and Right has allowed and encouraged high migration levels since 1945.
Immigration is the MAIN factor. For 70 years.
Not at all- as the beginning of my above comment clearly states- it is a factor. But it is far from the main factor. One study from the ministry of housing put it at 20% contribution during a period when house prices had increased 320%. An Oxford study put immigration as the difference between a 10fold increase and a 9fold increase.
it is very telling that amongst these comments anyone who states immigration is the serious cause of house price increases gets many upvotes. But it is a small factor amongst many much more important ones.
You clearly have a problem with basic maths.
If we did not have mass immigration into UK, we would not need even 200k houses build every year.
So supply is plenty.
Problem is demand created by 3rd world savages flooding this country.
And you clearly have a problem with basic decency.
No. His decency is fine. He is fed up to the back teeth with governments which, whoever is elected, have pursued policies of flooding his home with immigrants.
No. His decency is fine. He is fed up to the back teeth with governments which, whoever is elected, have pursued policies of flooding his home with immigrants.
And you clearly have a problem with basic decency.
Buy to let IS unattractive. Have a quick google of the figures for landlords leaving the market.
Taxation, regulation new EPC demands and the revocation of section 21 just some of the recent changes. Rents are skyrocketing but are still only around 5% return. You can almost get that on deposit now. The government has for many years been making being a landlord unattractive and has finally succeeded.
Watch the rental crisis as it unfolds before your eyes. It’s happening right now.
I read this article on the same day that the Telegraph had an article suggesting that net migration might reach 1M this year.
Whilst I agree with some of your comments about buy to let – it is inequitable that finance costs receive 20% relief for a BTL owner but not for a ‘normal’ purchase – your comment about immigrants is ludicrous itself. According to the HoC library nearly 16M people in the UK are either foreign nationals or were born abroad. More pertinently for the author of the article – 37% of the population of London were born outside the UK. Are you seriously suggesting this hasn’t had an impact on the availabilty and cost of housing?
You clearly have a problem with basic maths.
If we did not have mass immigration into UK, we would not need even 200k houses build every year.
So supply is plenty.
Problem is demand created by 3rd world savages flooding this country.
Buy to let IS unattractive. Have a quick google of the figures for landlords leaving the market.
Taxation, regulation new EPC demands and the revocation of section 21 just some of the recent changes. Rents are skyrocketing but are still only around 5% return. You can almost get that on deposit now. The government has for many years been making being a landlord unattractive and has finally succeeded.
Watch the rental crisis as it unfolds before your eyes. It’s happening right now.
Because woke young and middle age (like the author) believe in mass immigration and multi-culti.
I see this lot in London craft beer bars as staff.
Grads of soft subjects, hoping for career as journalist, scriptwriters or theatre designers.
Reality is, there are not enough jobs like above for number of moronic grads churned out by uk pseudo universities.
And they don’t pay well enough.
The same moronic soft subject grads who fuel our world-beating arts and entertainments industry that the Tories seem so happy to trash, both through Brexit (and the ridiculous restrictions it places on our touring musicians) and by cutting spending to the arts?
The same moronic soft subject grads who fuel our world-beating arts and entertainments industry that the Tories seem so happy to trash, both through Brexit (and the ridiculous restrictions it places on our touring musicians) and by cutting spending to the arts?
Mind boggling indeed but very telling.It’s stil politically incorrect to mention overpopulation as the cause of anything, like global warming for instance. Overpopulation and religions are intertwined, but are the elephants in the room as far as the media goes. Muslims have guilt-tripped people into silence. It’s a religion that’s heavily into control and knows how to use it to silence critics. There is, of course the fear factor of speaking out because you might get killed for so doing. A valid concern.Of course catholicism isn’t much better as far as uncontrolled breeding goes but the younger generation may eased up a bit. Fundamentalism likes to take the bible literally when, way back then, someone supposedly said “go forth and multiply’. So they’re still at it regardless of how unsustainable it makes life on this planet for the rest of us.
Fine- clearly that excess demand (if we believe your figures) does not help the balance, but to say that the problems with housing in the UK is mainly the result of immigrants is ludicrous.
What the author of the article is trying to point out is two key things. 1) there has been a boom in post 1970’s asset prices unseen for centuries, that despite a few nasty corrections has been on a relentless upward path due to the flood of cheap money and financial deregulation. At the same time there has been a brutal subjugation of the bargaining power of labour and hence real wages have stagnated. This is how we come to the situation wherein (as the author points out) in 1980 you had to save your wage for 3 years whereas now you have to save for 19 years! This has nothing to do with immigration. This is a well engineered wealth transfer from labour towards capital.
2) in addition to the above the author points out the deeply unfair lack of regulation of the rental sector. This lack of regulation is what makes buy to let so attractive as it reduces the financial burden imposed on landlords. As a result a whole class of rentiers bids up housing stock, as the profit margins (due to lack of regulations and cheap money) are so attractive. Peter completely misunderstands this point. To say that buy to let is simply taking housing stock and giving it a different owner misunderstands how markets work. All markets involve the change of owner. That is what a market is. But the key point is when there are more people chasing an asset the price of that asset is pushed up. Due to the attractiveness of buy to let as a money making enterprise houses become more expensive than they would have been. Essentially a whole new class of demand for houses is created by making it attractive financially. That is a pure political decision. Taxes and regulation could easily be increased so that buy to let is unattractive. This would remove this artificial class of demand and allow lower prices for people who actually need somewhere to live
Because woke young and middle age (like the author) believe in mass immigration and multi-culti.
I see this lot in London craft beer bars as staff.
Grads of soft subjects, hoping for career as journalist, scriptwriters or theatre designers.
Reality is, there are not enough jobs like above for number of moronic grads churned out by uk pseudo universities.
And they don’t pay well enough.
It’s also quite telling that he’s able to write a lengthy article on this topic without once mentioning mass immigration. How can we have a sensible national debate about any aspect of our economy whilst assiduously ignoring an entire herd of elephants in the room?
I don’t think we’re disagreeing.
I’ve already acknowledge that this is not a perfectly functioning free market. Ridiculous planning laws and vested interest groups blocking new housing being two prime examples.
But that does not mean that the laws of supply and demand do not apply. Increase demand and prices will go up. Decrease the cost of money (interest rates) and prices will go up. Restrict supply and prices will go up. Allow unlimited “overseas investment” and prices will go up. Tune every government policy to support and inflate house prices. Do all these things and housing becomes unaffordable for ordinary British people.
But these are all choices and could be changed.
But you are talking about a law of supply and demand whilst in the same breath mentioning market distortions. When people refer to laws of supply and demand they are usually implying economics 101 in the context of a free market. However as your comments show you don’t believe the market is free as you have mentioned many factors that have distorted it. You cant represent both points of view at the same time. Either the market is distorted and hence not free and hence the laws of supply and demand are also distorted and hence their ‘laws’ are broken or the market is free (hence without distortion) and you can patronise the author with your ‘when are the young going to learn about the laws of supply and demand’.
Your bad faith (or bad logic) straddling of this point drives me to sigh- ‘when will these boomers realise they can’t have their cake and eat it’
Nonsense.
As I’ve stated, the law of supply and demand does not need a perfectly free market. They couldn’t even get rid of it in the Warsaw Pact – it just popped up again in the black market when the state economy couldn’t deliver the goods.
I really don’t know what else I can say if you cannot grasp this.
You will be doing the author no favours at all if you wish him to continue in his delusions. If it’s a little upsetting for him to be criticised, that’s nothing compared to be the longer term pain he’ll suffer by not getting these things straight.
But the author isn’t deluded. He understands that prices are primarily fuelled by speculation driven by greed taking advantage of tax breaks, cheap money and a lack of regulation. That’s why there are boom and bust cycles. You have stated that there is a law at play and that increased immigration reduces supply and hence pushes up prices. But you have to be consistent otherwise you are mistaking coincidence for causality. The flip side to your law is that whenever house prices reduce then immigration must also reduce. This is not what the data shows. House prices are more than able to crash with immigration holding steady or even increasing. Why? Because it isn’t a major factor with regard to house prices.
You want the tip of an iceberg to be the entire iceberg because that is all you want to see.
But the author isn’t deluded. He understands that prices are primarily fuelled by speculation driven by greed taking advantage of tax breaks, cheap money and a lack of regulation. That’s why there are boom and bust cycles. You have stated that there is a law at play and that increased immigration reduces supply and hence pushes up prices. But you have to be consistent otherwise you are mistaking coincidence for causality. The flip side to your law is that whenever house prices reduce then immigration must also reduce. This is not what the data shows. House prices are more than able to crash with immigration holding steady or even increasing. Why? Because it isn’t a major factor with regard to house prices.
You want the tip of an iceberg to be the entire iceberg because that is all you want to see.
You are just another brain dead, woke lefty.
Yes, things you mentioned are relevant but they are just noise in comparison to 500k a year of useless immigrants flooding this country.
AI and robotics are coming in big wave creating huge dislocation and many jobs like Uber drivers disappearing.
I would propose that all the extras now here will regret ever coming in 20 years…
I wonder if ‘useless immigrant’ is how you’ll refer to the nurse working overtime to look after you when one day you’re dying in the arms of a collapsing NHS
If those animals I see coming in in the boats are looking after me when I’m dying then shoot me now.
I won’t berate you for calling them animals because if you can’t in your own heart see how cruel and innacurate a term that is for people escaping wars (often that we’ve helped to create) then there’s no point trying to convince you; then you are one of the last stooges falling for the election propaganda of a party that has nothing left to run on but raw fear of foreigners – the last group, alongside trans people, that they have left to blame for the problems they have caused this country.
If you do get your dream of lower (net zero?) immigration, let’s hope you’re either rich enough for private healthcare or have been campaigning for nurses to get a proper living wage and affordable housing because without that you won’t have any looking after you once the immigration stops.
I won’t berate you for calling them animals because if you can’t in your own heart see how cruel and innacurate a term that is for people escaping wars (often that we’ve helped to create) then there’s no point trying to convince you; then you are one of the last stooges falling for the election propaganda of a party that has nothing left to run on but raw fear of foreigners – the last group, alongside trans people, that they have left to blame for the problems they have caused this country.
If you do get your dream of lower (net zero?) immigration, let’s hope you’re either rich enough for private healthcare or have been campaigning for nurses to get a proper living wage and affordable housing because without that you won’t have any looking after you once the immigration stops.
If those animals I see coming in in the boats are looking after me when I’m dying then shoot me now.
It has nothing to do with being woke or lefty. If you really believe that impoverished immigrants have the means to bid up the price of some of the most expensive real estate on earth, then you clearly haven’t tried to buy a house recently. And when house prices crash as they do from time to time is that because suddenly all the immigrants have departed? Of course not. Speculative bubbles have very little to do with fundamental figures such as immigration, and everything to do with the flows of cheap money towards a rentier class spurred on by greed.
Precisely. Demand for housing by the wealthy (very much alive and kicking and far from ‘old’ as Matt Goodwin so deceivingly calls them) elite is the biggest driver here. There is no shortage of housing. It is also a distribution problem caused by an insufficently regulated industry that builds for the highest bidder not those most in need. There are *more* houses than households in Britain! A fact far more people need to be aware of.
Precisely. Demand for housing by the wealthy (very much alive and kicking and far from ‘old’ as Matt Goodwin so deceivingly calls them) elite is the biggest driver here. There is no shortage of housing. It is also a distribution problem caused by an insufficently regulated industry that builds for the highest bidder not those most in need. There are *more* houses than households in Britain! A fact far more people need to be aware of.
I wonder if ‘useless immigrant’ is how you’ll refer to the nurse working overtime to look after you when one day you’re dying in the arms of a collapsing NHS
It has nothing to do with being woke or lefty. If you really believe that impoverished immigrants have the means to bid up the price of some of the most expensive real estate on earth, then you clearly haven’t tried to buy a house recently. And when house prices crash as they do from time to time is that because suddenly all the immigrants have departed? Of course not. Speculative bubbles have very little to do with fundamental figures such as immigration, and everything to do with the flows of cheap money towards a rentier class spurred on by greed.
Nonsense.
As I’ve stated, the law of supply and demand does not need a perfectly free market. They couldn’t even get rid of it in the Warsaw Pact – it just popped up again in the black market when the state economy couldn’t deliver the goods.
I really don’t know what else I can say if you cannot grasp this.
You will be doing the author no favours at all if you wish him to continue in his delusions. If it’s a little upsetting for him to be criticised, that’s nothing compared to be the longer term pain he’ll suffer by not getting these things straight.
You are just another brain dead, woke lefty.
Yes, things you mentioned are relevant but they are just noise in comparison to 500k a year of useless immigrants flooding this country.
AI and robotics are coming in big wave creating huge dislocation and many jobs like Uber drivers disappearing.
I would propose that all the extras now here will regret ever coming in 20 years…
But you are talking about a law of supply and demand whilst in the same breath mentioning market distortions. When people refer to laws of supply and demand they are usually implying economics 101 in the context of a free market. However as your comments show you don’t believe the market is free as you have mentioned many factors that have distorted it. You cant represent both points of view at the same time. Either the market is distorted and hence not free and hence the laws of supply and demand are also distorted and hence their ‘laws’ are broken or the market is free (hence without distortion) and you can patronise the author with your ‘when are the young going to learn about the laws of supply and demand’.
Your bad faith (or bad logic) straddling of this point drives me to sigh- ‘when will these boomers realise they can’t have their cake and eat it’
That’s a non sequitur.
The law of supply and demand is about as well established as the laws of gravity.
Whether our housing market is free is a separate question, with an obvious answer.
Supply hasn’t been allowed to rise to meet demand, thanks to planning restrictions.
Demand has been artificially inflated by uncontrolled immigration.
Demand was artificially inflated by the ultra-low interest rates that accompanied rampant money printing.
Demand has been artificially inflated by help-to-buy schemes.
Family breakdown and disincentive to downsize have made the situation worse.
And for a long time the tax system favoured buy-to-let.
Lots of shenanigans, as you say.
But the only way we’re going to get housing costs reasonable again is to restore balance between supply and demand, and unless we somehow lose millions of people, that means we’ll have to start building more.
I think Peter is saying when you have massive demand (500k immigrants a year) and low supply (200k new dwellings built a year) that law of supply and demand dictates prices will go up.
The law remains constant. You can either increase supply (notoriously difficult because people vigorously oppose new development near them) or reduce demand (possible now we are out of the EU but still the government resists capping immigration at a sensible level). I would suggest they cap total net immigration at half the number of new dwellings completed in the previous year. So the 2023 cap would be 115k – which is still a lot of foreign workers.
That the author of the article doesn’t mention immigration at all is mind-boggling.
It’s also quite telling that he’s able to write a lengthy article on this topic without once mentioning mass immigration. How can we have a sensible national debate about any aspect of our economy whilst assiduously ignoring an entire herd of elephants in the room?
I don’t think we’re disagreeing.
I’ve already acknowledge that this is not a perfectly functioning free market. Ridiculous planning laws and vested interest groups blocking new housing being two prime examples.
But that does not mean that the laws of supply and demand do not apply. Increase demand and prices will go up. Decrease the cost of money (interest rates) and prices will go up. Restrict supply and prices will go up. Allow unlimited “overseas investment” and prices will go up. Tune every government policy to support and inflate house prices. Do all these things and housing becomes unaffordable for ordinary British people.
But these are all choices and could be changed.
That’s a non sequitur.
The law of supply and demand is about as well established as the laws of gravity.
Whether our housing market is free is a separate question, with an obvious answer.
Supply hasn’t been allowed to rise to meet demand, thanks to planning restrictions.
Demand has been artificially inflated by uncontrolled immigration.
Demand was artificially inflated by the ultra-low interest rates that accompanied rampant money printing.
Demand has been artificially inflated by help-to-buy schemes.
Family breakdown and disincentive to downsize have made the situation worse.
And for a long time the tax system favoured buy-to-let.
Lots of shenanigans, as you say.
But the only way we’re going to get housing costs reasonable again is to restore balance between supply and demand, and unless we somehow lose millions of people, that means we’ll have to start building more.
The tragedy of this is that the writer above will probably vote Labour in the hope that they will do something to fix the problem whereas in fact what they will do is follow to the letter the Blairite policy of artificially inflating house prices in order to buy middle class votes.
Quite and they will also follow the Blairite policy of continuing to import cheap labour to paper over the cracks of our rotten and disfunctional economy.
And instead they should vote for?
Quite and they will also follow the Blairite policy of continuing to import cheap labour to paper over the cracks of our rotten and disfunctional economy.
And instead they should vote for?
Yes, that is the elephant in the room.
90% of young people I know in London flatly deny that mass immigration into UK (which they support) has anything to do with house prices.
UK builds about 200k housing units a year.
If immigration is running at 500k a year, there is clear shortage driving prices up.
Still, there is clear unfairness in how market works.
Renters and home owners are paying mortgages out of taxed income.
Whereas property investors get tax breaks (OK, now reduced).
We should stop allowing foreign nationals who are not taxpayers in uk to buy houses.
Countries like Switzerland and Denmark are not allowing free for all.
Housing is not like other investments.
It has serious implications for vialibility of uk long term if young people can not afford to have families.
It is turning this country into rentiers paradise.
Huge majority on this forum are for capitalist system.
But it can not work if majority has no capital, which for most people is housing.
The logical destination of current path is that home owners will become minority.
It is not difficult to imagine that propertless majority would vote for policies to punish house owning minority.
I am mid 60s, childless and property owner.
But society is a compact between generations.
I am not surprised that many young people don’t feel it works.
Despite what you said about immigrants in an earlier comment I agree with much of this. Immigration does seem too high and we need to start paying our own population properly rather than depending on cheap labour. Neither though should we give refugees the cold shoulder. Rather than incentivising them to come here, we should bring jobs to the places where refugees are before they travel to Europe, along the model suggested by the economist Paul Collier. This sounds pie in the sky but has apparently had success in Turkey where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been generated for refugees by German firms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-bIaIgcBuI
Despite what you said about immigrants in an earlier comment I agree with much of this. Immigration does seem too high and we need to start paying our own population properly rather than depending on cheap labour. Neither though should we give refugees the cold shoulder. Rather than incentivising them to come here, we should bring jobs to the places where refugees are before they travel to Europe, along the model suggested by the economist Paul Collier. This sounds pie in the sky but has apparently had success in Turkey where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been generated for refugees by German firms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-bIaIgcBuI
It’s frustrating listening to these people who blame landlords and vote in parties that are pro immigration. Like watching someone step on a rake over and over. We could change all houses to public ownership and it wouldn’t solve anything, there physically isn’t enough houses. Even if we built houses bypassing protests from locals and cut all the corners there’s no way it would keep up with the numbers entering the country.
You aren’t a bad person for reducing the numbers to a sustainable level and putting your needs first.
Speaking as one of those people, I’m with you on the blindness to immigration being part of the problem, bu you’re wrong that changing houses to public ownership would not solve the problem – think of all the money we’d bring into the public purse from the rent of all those productive immigrants in public housing! ‘Physically not enough houses’ is also plain wrong – there are actually more houses than households in the UK because (as with any insufficiently regulated market) the housing market is one that serves demand rather than need (developers are catering to the super rich who want to hoard their money inton assets, rather than poor working families who need them). That fact alone shows that developers and speculators are indeed at least as much a part of the problem as immigrants (who at least are productive)
Speaking as one of those people, I’m with you on the blindness to immigration being part of the problem, bu you’re wrong that changing houses to public ownership would not solve the problem – think of all the money we’d bring into the public purse from the rent of all those productive immigrants in public housing! ‘Physically not enough houses’ is also plain wrong – there are actually more houses than households in the UK because (as with any insufficiently regulated market) the housing market is one that serves demand rather than need (developers are catering to the super rich who want to hoard their money inton assets, rather than poor working families who need them). That fact alone shows that developers and speculators are indeed at least as much a part of the problem as immigrants (who at least are productive)
The boom in property prices, and how they have accelerated past the wage market which they used to track, has a lot to do with the manipulation of the financial markets and the outsourcing of manufacturing to low-wage economies.
Money creation and years of artificially low interest rates (and credit access thereto available to a few privileged players) pushed up asset prices, while cheap foreign imports created the illusion of “low” inflation at the retail level. Low retail inflation “justified” low wage inflation, while asset prices soared. That is why getting on the house-ownership ladder became more difficult.
Matters have not been helped by ever more costly regulatory burdens placed on landlords and which disproportionately penalise small landlords. As a result, many small landlords are quitting the market, reducing supply competition.
Spot on. The London commuter town I live in has grown hugely in the 20 years I’ve lived here. We are building a lot of houses, but can’t keep pace with the influx.
I’d also query whether being unable to afford a flat of your own after 17 years in the job market doesn’t say more about career progression than housing.
The laws of supply and demand that you feel are so obvious, imply that you feel the market is a free one. It has been the absolute imperative of a succession of governments (here in the Uk and as you correctly point out in other countries) to artificially keep house prices high through a multitude of shenanigans. Why? because then the asset owners will vote for them.
There is nothing free market about this, and hence appealing to the ‘law’ of supply and demand is nonsensical.
The tragedy of this is that the writer above will probably vote Labour in the hope that they will do something to fix the problem whereas in fact what they will do is follow to the letter the Blairite policy of artificially inflating house prices in order to buy middle class votes.
Yes, that is the elephant in the room.
90% of young people I know in London flatly deny that mass immigration into UK (which they support) has anything to do with house prices.
UK builds about 200k housing units a year.
If immigration is running at 500k a year, there is clear shortage driving prices up.
Still, there is clear unfairness in how market works.
Renters and home owners are paying mortgages out of taxed income.
Whereas property investors get tax breaks (OK, now reduced).
We should stop allowing foreign nationals who are not taxpayers in uk to buy houses.
Countries like Switzerland and Denmark are not allowing free for all.
Housing is not like other investments.
It has serious implications for vialibility of uk long term if young people can not afford to have families.
It is turning this country into rentiers paradise.
Huge majority on this forum are for capitalist system.
But it can not work if majority has no capital, which for most people is housing.
The logical destination of current path is that home owners will become minority.
It is not difficult to imagine that propertless majority would vote for policies to punish house owning minority.
I am mid 60s, childless and property owner.
But society is a compact between generations.
I am not surprised that many young people don’t feel it works.
It’s frustrating listening to these people who blame landlords and vote in parties that are pro immigration. Like watching someone step on a rake over and over. We could change all houses to public ownership and it wouldn’t solve anything, there physically isn’t enough houses. Even if we built houses bypassing protests from locals and cut all the corners there’s no way it would keep up with the numbers entering the country.
You aren’t a bad person for reducing the numbers to a sustainable level and putting your needs first.
The boom in property prices, and how they have accelerated past the wage market which they used to track, has a lot to do with the manipulation of the financial markets and the outsourcing of manufacturing to low-wage economies.
Money creation and years of artificially low interest rates (and credit access thereto available to a few privileged players) pushed up asset prices, while cheap foreign imports created the illusion of “low” inflation at the retail level. Low retail inflation “justified” low wage inflation, while asset prices soared. That is why getting on the house-ownership ladder became more difficult.
Matters have not been helped by ever more costly regulatory burdens placed on landlords and which disproportionately penalise small landlords. As a result, many small landlords are quitting the market, reducing supply competition.
So much wrong with this article.
Yes, unaffordable housing in the UK is a disaster, both immediately for younger people and for all of us eventually. But there is little unique about the UK here – this is all across the developed world.
But we won’t get anywhere if the recalled “facts” and analysis are so wide of the mark.
Right to Buy is not the reason for high house prices. House prices are ridiculously high in countries where there was no right to buy.
But to Let does not of itself affect the housing stock. It just changes the ownership. I’m surprised this needs saying. In a normal market, the increased demand it indicates would also increase supply. But UK housing isn’t a normal market.
People with mortgages face similar risks of eviction/repossion as renters. Entirely possible we’re heading for an early 90s style rise in repossessions – there are certainly a lot of people on interest only mortgages with no obvious means to repay their enornmous loans. Those who felt obliged to buy into a grossly inflated housing market may be just as much victims as renters. That’s happened before.
The reason we tolerate all this is not because “the system is working so well for a privileged few”. It’s because it’s believed (incorrectly in my view) to be working well for a majority of those who get off their backsides and vote.
Rent controls simply don’t work. Enough evidence from around the world here. Further experiments are uneccesary and won’t help.
Finally, the elephant in the room. No mention at all of the effect of an increasing population on the demand for housing – and the consequent inflation of housing prices – both for renters and those who buy houses.
When are these young people going to learn about the law of supply and demand ? It’s hardly rocket science.
There’s an important article to be written here on housing and the appalling impact this must be having on young people. But sadly, this isn’t it.
Writer (notoriously poorly-paid job) lives in London (notoriously expensive city) pens book about his wacky and unorthodox lifestyle then complains he can’t afford a mortgage. Look, if you want to be a freewheeling bohemian journo living on the edge, that’s really cool. I get it. On the other hand, you can’t hit thirty-five, realise you’ve made some economically suboptimal lifestyle choices then whine about the iniquity of late capitalism (but not poorly-managed immigration, but I suppose that wouldn’t go down well with your mates at ‘Vice’). Curiously, though, the ‘Deano’ class your journalistic contemporaries look down their coke-dusted snouts at seem to have successfully negotiated the property ladder.
‘Coke dusted snouts’!! Love it.
Ok… and the teachers and nurses also struggling to live in London?
Oh, I’m all for key worker schemes. 100%. Until George Osborne killed them off, I knew several people working in key jobs getting their foot on the ladder via right-to-buy / shared ownership etc.
Oh, I’m all for key worker schemes. 100%. Until George Osborne killed them off, I knew several people working in key jobs getting their foot on the ladder via right-to-buy / shared ownership etc.
‘Coke dusted snouts’!! Love it.
Ok… and the teachers and nurses also struggling to live in London?
Writer (notoriously poorly-paid job) lives in London (notoriously expensive city) pens book about his wacky and unorthodox lifestyle then complains he can’t afford a mortgage. Look, if you want to be a freewheeling bohemian journo living on the edge, that’s really cool. I get it. On the other hand, you can’t hit thirty-five, realise you’ve made some economically suboptimal lifestyle choices then whine about the iniquity of late capitalism (but not poorly-managed immigration, but I suppose that wouldn’t go down well with your mates at ‘Vice’). Curiously, though, the ‘Deano’ class your journalistic contemporaries look down their coke-dusted snouts at seem to have successfully negotiated the property ladder.
Sure. I managed to buy a house which I have paid for, and which I completely own. I’m retired, and acknowledge that it was a lot easier for me (starting out in 1986) than it is for young people today. But I often came close to not being able to pay the mortgage, and never had a lot of cash left over. Holidays were few and far between.
Today, we live in a house that’s tied to my wife’s job, so we rent out the house that we own. The first tenants completely trashed the place – Victorian sash windows completely knocked out of the wall, etc. – and this was extremely stressful, involving legal threats, the agent saying there was very little we could do if they chose to stop paying rent and squatted there, and so on. Every year the regulations to do with carbon monoxide detectors, insulation, wiring, and gas checks seem to increase. Despite a rent review increasing the rent by a small amount every year, this has never kept up with inflation. We choose to have agents looking after the property because the alternative is that tenants could ring me up in the small hours to fix a leak, but there is the unavoidable nagging suspicion that the agent bungs unnecessary work to his favoured sub-contractors. I’ve lost count of the number of times the tenant has blocked the toilet and the same plumbing firm has made ninety quid out of it. So it’s quite a lot of stress for very little money.
If things were made any more difficult for us with “MOT”s, further regulations, and a rent cap, I’d stop renting it out and just store my tools and surplus books there. The single mum who lives there could look elsewhere for accommodation. That would be a great pity, but at least then I wouldn’t be scum.
It is indeed absurd that you need to collect so many licences to rent out a property. Most of these are checks which are uneccessary in your own home – which implies that you’re own home is “unsafe”. Only it isn’t … .
There is no limit to government’s inclination to interfere and make things which were simple and cheap complex and expensive. These excess “safety costs” are not only on rental housing. They are also on cars and many other things. A car equipped with ESP (some electronic stability control feature which is now mandatory) will fail an MOT if this does not work. Yet it’s a feature I’ve never used or needed in around 20 years of driving since it was introduced.
So you essentially want to run a business by charging young families to use the “service” you provide (in this case accommodation) but you don’t want to have to adhere to any government regulations around health and safety on the product you supply to your customers the same as any other industry has to?
I don’t think he’s saying that though. Like many people, he’s an accidental landlord (by circumstance rather than choice). As I once was.
He’s happy for his unused property to be used to house someone else. He’s providing a service that he’s not obliged to.
If his home is sufficiently safe for him and his wife to live in, why should he need to spend hundreds of pounds *every year* getting certifications and licences to “prove” it ? These constraints are quite recent – things were running pretty well without them and they are certainly not required in your own home. All these regulations – and they keep increasing every year – really do is create a reliable income stream for a small army of people who tick the boxes and issue the certificates. And – more importantly – push up the cost of housing for renters. And tend to reduce the supply of rental property.
Some regulation is indeed necessary. But it’s gone way too far here.
My kitchen is perfectly safe for me and my wife, but if I want to use to to sell food as a business then I have to adhere to much more stringent health and safety guidelines. If you want to run a business, which is what landlords often claim to be doing, then you have obligations towards the wellbeing of your customers
My kitchen is perfectly safe for me and my wife, but if I want to use to to sell food as a business then I have to adhere to much more stringent health and safety guidelines. If you want to run a business, which is what landlords often claim to be doing, then you have obligations towards the wellbeing of your customers
No, I’m merely pointing out that the increasing list of government regulations, along with the tax taken from the income, and the necessity of paying an agent, and the frequent periods of stress involved when a stranger has de facto possession of your largest financial asset, makes it a game hardly worth the candle.
If it’s not worth it then sell up and do something else. You owning that house prevents a young family from owning a family home of their own. You’re essentially making people buy you a second house and then complaining that you have to prove that it’s habitable? My heart bleeds!
No, I won’t sell up, thanks, as it’s a good investment. Me owning that house prevents nobody from owning anything; no housebuilder ever refrained from increasing the housing stock because of my Victorian terraced house. I’m not making people buy me a second house – where did this come from? Nor am I complaining that I have to prove it’s habitable. I’m merely saying that with increasing overheads, I’m not making very much money for the headaches I endure over it.
The single mother of two children who rents my property can’t buy that house. Instead we work together to make a home for her to live in. I wouldn’t swap her as a tenant. But as Simon points out the regulation goes too far.
No, I won’t sell up, thanks, as it’s a good investment. Me owning that house prevents nobody from owning anything; no housebuilder ever refrained from increasing the housing stock because of my Victorian terraced house. I’m not making people buy me a second house – where did this come from? Nor am I complaining that I have to prove it’s habitable. I’m merely saying that with increasing overheads, I’m not making very much money for the headaches I endure over it.
The single mother of two children who rents my property can’t buy that house. Instead we work together to make a home for her to live in. I wouldn’t swap her as a tenant. But as Simon points out the regulation goes too far.
If it’s not worth it then sell up and do something else. You owning that house prevents a young family from owning a family home of their own. You’re essentially making people buy you a second house and then complaining that you have to prove that it’s habitable? My heart bleeds!
I don’t think he’s saying that though. Like many people, he’s an accidental landlord (by circumstance rather than choice). As I once was.
He’s happy for his unused property to be used to house someone else. He’s providing a service that he’s not obliged to.
If his home is sufficiently safe for him and his wife to live in, why should he need to spend hundreds of pounds *every year* getting certifications and licences to “prove” it ? These constraints are quite recent – things were running pretty well without them and they are certainly not required in your own home. All these regulations – and they keep increasing every year – really do is create a reliable income stream for a small army of people who tick the boxes and issue the certificates. And – more importantly – push up the cost of housing for renters. And tend to reduce the supply of rental property.
Some regulation is indeed necessary. But it’s gone way too far here.
No, I’m merely pointing out that the increasing list of government regulations, along with the tax taken from the income, and the necessity of paying an agent, and the frequent periods of stress involved when a stranger has de facto possession of your largest financial asset, makes it a game hardly worth the candle.
It is indeed absurd that you need to collect so many licences to rent out a property. Most of these are checks which are uneccessary in your own home – which implies that you’re own home is “unsafe”. Only it isn’t … .
There is no limit to government’s inclination to interfere and make things which were simple and cheap complex and expensive. These excess “safety costs” are not only on rental housing. They are also on cars and many other things. A car equipped with ESP (some electronic stability control feature which is now mandatory) will fail an MOT if this does not work. Yet it’s a feature I’ve never used or needed in around 20 years of driving since it was introduced.
So you essentially want to run a business by charging young families to use the “service” you provide (in this case accommodation) but you don’t want to have to adhere to any government regulations around health and safety on the product you supply to your customers the same as any other industry has to?
Sure. I managed to buy a house which I have paid for, and which I completely own. I’m retired, and acknowledge that it was a lot easier for me (starting out in 1986) than it is for young people today. But I often came close to not being able to pay the mortgage, and never had a lot of cash left over. Holidays were few and far between.
Today, we live in a house that’s tied to my wife’s job, so we rent out the house that we own. The first tenants completely trashed the place – Victorian sash windows completely knocked out of the wall, etc. – and this was extremely stressful, involving legal threats, the agent saying there was very little we could do if they chose to stop paying rent and squatted there, and so on. Every year the regulations to do with carbon monoxide detectors, insulation, wiring, and gas checks seem to increase. Despite a rent review increasing the rent by a small amount every year, this has never kept up with inflation. We choose to have agents looking after the property because the alternative is that tenants could ring me up in the small hours to fix a leak, but there is the unavoidable nagging suspicion that the agent bungs unnecessary work to his favoured sub-contractors. I’ve lost count of the number of times the tenant has blocked the toilet and the same plumbing firm has made ninety quid out of it. So it’s quite a lot of stress for very little money.
If things were made any more difficult for us with “MOT”s, further regulations, and a rent cap, I’d stop renting it out and just store my tools and surplus books there. The single mum who lives there could look elsewhere for accommodation. That would be a great pity, but at least then I wouldn’t be scum.
1. Cut immigration
2. Build new garden cites
Exactly. Price too high? 1. reduce demand, 2. increase supply.
It amazes me that no political party has that at the centre of its manifesto.
A house for every British family sounds like an election winner to me.
The devilish details would include building more family houses. And then the question of : Where?
And the protests would start immediately a location is announced.
The devilish details would include building more family houses. And then the question of : Where?
And the protests would start immediately a location is announced.
Remove illegals already here, probably 3 millions at least.
That would need some balls and persuasion.
Like in “you don’t want to go back, darling?”
What about being dropped from a plane over Atlantic or Mama Africa, then?
Exactly. Price too high? 1. reduce demand, 2. increase supply.
It amazes me that no political party has that at the centre of its manifesto.
A house for every British family sounds like an election winner to me.
Remove illegals already here, probably 3 millions at least.
That would need some balls and persuasion.
Like in “you don’t want to go back, darling?”
What about being dropped from a plane over Atlantic or Mama Africa, then?
1. Cut immigration
2. Build new garden cites
Beyond the content, a very badly written article that made it a little hard to read. Don’t inexperienced author’s like this get help from an editor? I’m sure living like this is no fun in many ways and the author has my sympathy. I’m not convinced of the solutions offered though. Regarding the fabled German rental market, is the fact the German population has increased by 2.5% in the last 30 years against our 14% not even worth a mention?
Certainly an important point.
Of course not.
We need more members of vibrant communities of rapists, terrorists and drug dealers.
Just look at NHS nurses of certain background.
Most of them would struggle to wipe off their oversized asses, never mind doing any meaningful work.
Wow you’re quite the charmer tonight aren’t you. And I suppose blessed are the landlords and major shareholders who actually do do nothing for their money? Rather than these good for nothing nurses whose laziness I assume you have well documented evidence for?
‘Landlords who do nothing for their money’. The rental market is quite heavily regulated, renting is the only business where loan interest is not fully deductible. Granted there are a subset of landlords who are greedy and leave their properties in a terrible state but only in the same way there are cowboy builders, dodgy car mechanics etc etc. Landlords provided a service to renters, it is only because in this country we seem to think that home ownership is the prize to be chased – why, so you can have the property stripped from under you in care home fees?? Rather than vilify private landlords recognise them for what they could be – a source of rental housing for those that need it whilst having the good investment sense to tie up their capital in a profitable asset class. Sounds like business to me.
Cowboy builders and dodgy car mechanics at least provide a service with their *labour*. Not so for someone who is just giving access to an asset whilst doing near to no work apart from perhaps checking whether your money has come into their bank account. ‘A source of rental housing for those that need it’ is what they are *not* to all those people priced out of the private rented sector. We need an expansion of public housing and a government that is not afraid to stand up to the interests which have so long prevented the Tories from making any headway in this area, as Roger Scruton pointed out in his conversation with Douglas Murray on Conservatism for the Spectator (natually Murray was careful to not follow up on this point, the Spectator being as close to Downing Street as it is)
Cowboy builders and dodgy car mechanics at least provide a service with their *labour*. Not so for someone who is just giving access to an asset whilst doing near to no work apart from perhaps checking whether your money has come into their bank account. ‘A source of rental housing for those that need it’ is what they are *not* to all those people priced out of the private rented sector. We need an expansion of public housing and a government that is not afraid to stand up to the interests which have so long prevented the Tories from making any headway in this area, as Roger Scruton pointed out in his conversation with Douglas Murray on Conservatism for the Spectator (natually Murray was careful to not follow up on this point, the Spectator being as close to Downing Street as it is)
‘Landlords who do nothing for their money’. The rental market is quite heavily regulated, renting is the only business where loan interest is not fully deductible. Granted there are a subset of landlords who are greedy and leave their properties in a terrible state but only in the same way there are cowboy builders, dodgy car mechanics etc etc. Landlords provided a service to renters, it is only because in this country we seem to think that home ownership is the prize to be chased – why, so you can have the property stripped from under you in care home fees?? Rather than vilify private landlords recognise them for what they could be – a source of rental housing for those that need it whilst having the good investment sense to tie up their capital in a profitable asset class. Sounds like business to me.
Wow you’re quite the charmer tonight aren’t you. And I suppose blessed are the landlords and major shareholders who actually do do nothing for their money? Rather than these good for nothing nurses whose laziness I assume you have well documented evidence for?
Certainly an important point.
Of course not.
We need more members of vibrant communities of rapists, terrorists and drug dealers.
Just look at NHS nurses of certain background.
Most of them would struggle to wipe off their oversized asses, never mind doing any meaningful work.
Beyond the content, a very badly written article that made it a little hard to read. Don’t inexperienced author’s like this get help from an editor? I’m sure living like this is no fun in many ways and the author has my sympathy. I’m not convinced of the solutions offered though. Regarding the fabled German rental market, is the fact the German population has increased by 2.5% in the last 30 years against our 14% not even worth a mention?
The population of the UK increased by approximately 3.7 million (5.9%) during the last decade – with a similar or even higher rate of growth expected for the next decade
The average per year of new buildings completed in the UK was approximately 200,000
That’s 2 million new houses and flats for an additional population of 3.7 million with supply and demand in areas of greater economic activity being lower and higher, respectively.
Fewer people or more houses are the only two possible solutions to the problem! But considering the pressures on the environment, climate change etc., there really is only one solution…
Unfortunately for nature and tragically for many people, this is not happening!
Anyone with half a brain can see it.
But not woke lefties and net zero green blob…
Anyone with half a brain can see it.
But not woke lefties and net zero green blob…
The population of the UK increased by approximately 3.7 million (5.9%) during the last decade – with a similar or even higher rate of growth expected for the next decade
The average per year of new buildings completed in the UK was approximately 200,000
That’s 2 million new houses and flats for an additional population of 3.7 million with supply and demand in areas of greater economic activity being lower and higher, respectively.
Fewer people or more houses are the only two possible solutions to the problem! But considering the pressures on the environment, climate change etc., there really is only one solution…
Unfortunately for nature and tragically for many people, this is not happening!
Not a single mention of Immigration. Infrastructure cannot keep pace with a million migrants a year, nor should it have to. Massively increased demand on not the supply to cover it.
On the island of Jersey, only Jersies can own their own homes, or at the very least, it’s made very difficult to purchase a home. It’s something that could be tried in England. Also, on the subject of migrants, the obvious attractions could be taken away, like education after 17 years old; children’s allowance for more than two children; other benefits which I’m sure others could add on. No right to vote, more difficult to gain citizenship, etc. As the dogs in the street know, many migrants are not fleeing war or famine or climate change, but they are economic migrants. We can end up in a situation where citizens are renting, paying tax, saving for a mortgage, having children before it’s too late, growing out of their apartment and on the other hand, immigrants getting housed by the council and then sending their children to expensive schools with the money they’ve saved in the process.
On the island of Jersey, only Jersies can own their own homes, or at the very least, it’s made very difficult to purchase a home. It’s something that could be tried in England. Also, on the subject of migrants, the obvious attractions could be taken away, like education after 17 years old; children’s allowance for more than two children; other benefits which I’m sure others could add on. No right to vote, more difficult to gain citizenship, etc. As the dogs in the street know, many migrants are not fleeing war or famine or climate change, but they are economic migrants. We can end up in a situation where citizens are renting, paying tax, saving for a mortgage, having children before it’s too late, growing out of their apartment and on the other hand, immigrants getting housed by the council and then sending their children to expensive schools with the money they’ve saved in the process.
Not a single mention of Immigration. Infrastructure cannot keep pace with a million migrants a year, nor should it have to. Massively increased demand on not the supply to cover it.
With the report that the Tories have increased net immigration again to 700k things are going to keep getting much worse. When hear the housing crisis debated they only ask why can’t we build more homes, not why do we have to build more homes?
With the report that the Tories have increased net immigration again to 700k things are going to keep getting much worse. When hear the housing crisis debated they only ask why can’t we build more homes, not why do we have to build more homes?
This is a truly terrible article. No sign of research, no sign of thought, no sign of analysis. Just based apparently on the authors dislike of of rented wallpaper.
The Thatcher reforms cured many of the problems of the rental market. Endless interference since, most notably by the Idiot Gove, have smashed the reforms so much that we are almost back to the 1960’s with surprise surprise, the same results. What is the definition of lunacy?
We probably do not build enough flats and houses. That bit is true. That is because government has severely restricted the supply of house building land, for political purposes – or votes. And that is going to get worse because the Idiot Gove is now interfering in that.
The free market was proved to work in rentals. Let’s get back to it.
Generally agree. But the difference over the past 30 years is that a lot more families (and mainly young families) are now in rented housing. What they most need is affordable housing with security of tenure – you don’t want to keep moving and changing schools if you can avoid it. Assured shorthold tenancies did solve a lot of problems, but they don’t really help young families.
I’ve rented in the UK, USA and France. In my experience, France offers the most security of tenure – rent increases were even decided centrally by some beauraucrat in Paris and were not at the discretion of landlords (until a new tenancy when the rent could be reset). I believe Germany is similar. The USA was also far better as there were plenty of apartment complexes owned and managed by companies specifically to rent out – a long time ago, but I was paying much less for far better accomodation than in the UK.
So yes, the rental market works far better for renters in most other countries. We probably don’t have the balance right in the UK.
I think a lot of the problem now is that rental property became another “get rich quick scheme” for people with little real interest in running a decent property rental business. Again the dead hand of Gordon Brown is all over this – with his greedy and shortsighted increase in taxes on pensions (with Starmer about to repeat the error if given the chance). Not all landlords are poor, but the quality in the UK is very variable.
Generally agree. But the difference over the past 30 years is that a lot more families (and mainly young families) are now in rented housing. What they most need is affordable housing with security of tenure – you don’t want to keep moving and changing schools if you can avoid it. Assured shorthold tenancies did solve a lot of problems, but they don’t really help young families.
I’ve rented in the UK, USA and France. In my experience, France offers the most security of tenure – rent increases were even decided centrally by some beauraucrat in Paris and were not at the discretion of landlords (until a new tenancy when the rent could be reset). I believe Germany is similar. The USA was also far better as there were plenty of apartment complexes owned and managed by companies specifically to rent out – a long time ago, but I was paying much less for far better accomodation than in the UK.
So yes, the rental market works far better for renters in most other countries. We probably don’t have the balance right in the UK.
I think a lot of the problem now is that rental property became another “get rich quick scheme” for people with little real interest in running a decent property rental business. Again the dead hand of Gordon Brown is all over this – with his greedy and shortsighted increase in taxes on pensions (with Starmer about to repeat the error if given the chance). Not all landlords are poor, but the quality in the UK is very variable.
This is a truly terrible article. No sign of research, no sign of thought, no sign of analysis. Just based apparently on the authors dislike of of rented wallpaper.
The Thatcher reforms cured many of the problems of the rental market. Endless interference since, most notably by the Idiot Gove, have smashed the reforms so much that we are almost back to the 1960’s with surprise surprise, the same results. What is the definition of lunacy?
We probably do not build enough flats and houses. That bit is true. That is because government has severely restricted the supply of house building land, for political purposes – or votes. And that is going to get worse because the Idiot Gove is now interfering in that.
The free market was proved to work in rentals. Let’s get back to it.
“Problems with the housing system in this country track straight back to Thatcher’s “Right To Buy” Housing Act in the Eighties, which offered such irresistible purchase terms to council tenants that a huge amount of the country’s public housing stock went private almost overnight, and there it has stayed.”
Crap. Nothing more than anti-Thatcher confirmation bias: we can identify huge problems with the housing market both before and after the 1980s. Before, the huge council house operation run by local government meant that the fabric of the housing stock was poorly maintained and suffering from the predictable Stalinism of government supply: low choice and rationing of maintenance services.
As for afterwards, it has been over 30 years since Thatcher in which Thatcher herself, were she making the decisions, would never have permitted the planning system to remained unreformed for so long, nor would she have permitted New Labour’s project of “rubbing Tory noses in diversity” through the idiotic immigration policy that has not merely driven housing demand into the stratosphere but has imposed similar burdens upon healthcare, education and transport.
Sorry, but there has been almost two generations in which both government and society could have adapted perfectly well to the obvious emerging supply/demand problems in the housing market, and the fact that this has not happened is the fault of the system in place over that time. Blaming Thatcher is the last resort of the stupid and irresponsible.
“Problems with the housing system in this country track straight back to Thatcher’s “Right To Buy” Housing Act in the Eighties, which offered such irresistible purchase terms to council tenants that a huge amount of the country’s public housing stock went private almost overnight, and there it has stayed.”
Crap. Nothing more than anti-Thatcher confirmation bias: we can identify huge problems with the housing market both before and after the 1980s. Before, the huge council house operation run by local government meant that the fabric of the housing stock was poorly maintained and suffering from the predictable Stalinism of government supply: low choice and rationing of maintenance services.
As for afterwards, it has been over 30 years since Thatcher in which Thatcher herself, were she making the decisions, would never have permitted the planning system to remained unreformed for so long, nor would she have permitted New Labour’s project of “rubbing Tory noses in diversity” through the idiotic immigration policy that has not merely driven housing demand into the stratosphere but has imposed similar burdens upon healthcare, education and transport.
Sorry, but there has been almost two generations in which both government and society could have adapted perfectly well to the obvious emerging supply/demand problems in the housing market, and the fact that this has not happened is the fault of the system in place over that time. Blaming Thatcher is the last resort of the stupid and irresponsible.
An important issue not recognised is that children used to live at home with their parents until they married. With more going to university there is an immediate demand for accommodation and many do not return home after university. Then there is the demand for housing due to uncontrolled immigration. At the other end of the age spectrum, people are living longer. Breakup of marriages also means another home is needed. When new housing is proposed there is always an objection especially when the proposal is in the green belt. The result is people being forced into undesirable, small, city tower block accommodation. We are creating new ghettos, or 15 minute cities are they are now called.
An important issue not recognised is that children used to live at home with their parents until they married. With more going to university there is an immediate demand for accommodation and many do not return home after university. Then there is the demand for housing due to uncontrolled immigration. At the other end of the age spectrum, people are living longer. Breakup of marriages also means another home is needed. When new housing is proposed there is always an objection especially when the proposal is in the green belt. The result is people being forced into undesirable, small, city tower block accommodation. We are creating new ghettos, or 15 minute cities are they are now called.
Agree with PeteB. I do feel for this author. Of course it’s not just a case of cutting out the smashed avocado and you will be able to afford a flat. But the remedies he suggests for the rental market are, as others have commented, utterly misguided. High rents are a result of an imbalance in supply and demand.
Of course we need more homes built, but they need to be the right homes of the right quality in the right places. And they aren’t. Not even the ones built for private sale. Shared “ownership” is revealed as an inadequate and exploitative scam, in which you never actually own anything. And as for publicly-owned social housing, which is the only answer for the poorest, there’s almost none. So supply is inadequate across the board, as we all know.
In that situation, we have to address demand. If we want a healthy rental market with competition keeping prices down, we need every granny renting out her spare room, every middle aged couple sinking savings into a buy-to-let flat, so the rent can supplement their pension in retirement. That’s what sort of happened in the noughties (briefly interrupted by the 2008 financial crisis.) Contrary to popular belief, that actually helped to keep rents stable for the best part of a decade. The problem is that buy-to-let has become substantially less attractive over the past couple of years, and as a result the market has begun to shrink.
First big problem was the tax change that disallowed the cost of finance as an expense. People who have large holdings and rent out through companies are OK. But ordinary individuals with the odd flat to rent now can’t set the mortgage against their rental income. [Say you rent for £1200 a month but have a £600 mortgage. You’d expect to pay tax on the £600 you have left. Fair enough. But as of 2017, you are taxed on the whole £1,200.] If you disallowed the cost of finance as a business expense across the board, every business in the UK would be bankrupt. So why penalise ordinary people who are supplying a much needed amenity?
This tax change caused some of the smallest landlords to quit. The rental market shrank, which meant rents were able to rise. Then you got the rise in mortgage interest rates. That puts a huge additional squeeze on buy-to-let landlords who invariably pay the highest rates and can’t take repayment loans. Then there’s soaring inflation on everything from energy bills to contractors’ labour and materials. Either rents have to rise even more to compensate or landlords quit the market. Both have been happening.
And now, looming over buy-to-let landlords, are the latest ideas for renter reform – principally the abolition of S21 no fault evictions. What do your family do if you die and they can’t pay inheritance tax, because they can’t sell your one bed buy-to- let flat with vacant possession? What if you want your flat back from a tenant to let a child or grandchild live in it? Removing S21 removes a persons control over their own property. Now renting feels like walking into a trap. You’ll be ok perhaps, if your tenants are reasonable people. But what if they aren’t?
Then there’s the crazy notion that we’ll all have to rip out perfectly good gas central heating and replace it with expensive and inefficient heat pumps. And finally there’s talk of rent caps. On top of all the above, this would be the last straw. No one rents out a property for charity. We all have to make money. If you don’t let us, we simply won’t do it. The market will shrink. The quality of what’s left to rent will fall.
Calling all landlords bastards is daft and unhelpful. As in any walk of life there are good, indifferent and terrible. It’s the good ones that these costs and restrictions will drive out. The bad are under the radar anyway, renting mouldy rooms to three and four people at a time, for cash.
Of course you are probably thinking, if people are selling out of rental in droves, why aren’t property prices coming down? The answer in London and other major cities is probably immigration. We have absorbed thousands of Hong Kong Chinese over the past couple of years, also thousands from Eastern Europe. The former at least are well-heeled enough to pay top prices for city flats which are often heavily marketed in places like Hong Kong, China and Singapore. The latter often rent in family groups where a number of working adults can club together to afford quite large rents. I’m not against this immigration . We need the energy and diversity these people are bringing in. But it’s inevitable that it comes at a cost – in the short term at least.
Isn’t all this a more reasonable analysis of the problem than a screaming renter, who appears not to understand economics or human behaviour and incentives? Follow his policies and he will be sleeping in a dumpster at 40 or moving back in with his parents. And it will be no ones fault but his own.
I am sorry, but why should rentier be in privileged position to people who buy their first home?
Rentiers do not increase supply of housing.
They remove existing stock from the market and expect renters to pay their mortgage.
People pay mortgages out of their net income.
Rentier class should do the same.
Rentiers, as you curiously call landlords, are in business. Finance costs are a tax deductible cost of a business, and especially should be for rental housing which often requires large amounts of borrowed capital. And that way the “rentier” expands his business, new housing is built, and supply expands to meet demand.
And using the other invisible hand, the planning system is adjusted to increase the supply of housing land, land prices drop, housing costs fall, and rents ease.
The market is wonderful, if we allow it to work
Rentiers, as you curiously call landlords, are in business. Finance costs are a tax deductible cost of a business, and especially should be for rental housing which often requires large amounts of borrowed capital. And that way the “rentier” expands his business, new housing is built, and supply expands to meet demand.
And using the other invisible hand, the planning system is adjusted to increase the supply of housing land, land prices drop, housing costs fall, and rents ease.
The market is wonderful, if we allow it to work
Very well expressed
I am sorry, but why should rentier be in privileged position to people who buy their first home?
Rentiers do not increase supply of housing.
They remove existing stock from the market and expect renters to pay their mortgage.
People pay mortgages out of their net income.
Rentier class should do the same.
Very well expressed
Agree with PeteB. I do feel for this author. Of course it’s not just a case of cutting out the smashed avocado and you will be able to afford a flat. But the remedies he suggests for the rental market are, as others have commented, utterly misguided. High rents are a result of an imbalance in supply and demand.
Of course we need more homes built, but they need to be the right homes of the right quality in the right places. And they aren’t. Not even the ones built for private sale. Shared “ownership” is revealed as an inadequate and exploitative scam, in which you never actually own anything. And as for publicly-owned social housing, which is the only answer for the poorest, there’s almost none. So supply is inadequate across the board, as we all know.
In that situation, we have to address demand. If we want a healthy rental market with competition keeping prices down, we need every granny renting out her spare room, every middle aged couple sinking savings into a buy-to-let flat, so the rent can supplement their pension in retirement. That’s what sort of happened in the noughties (briefly interrupted by the 2008 financial crisis.) Contrary to popular belief, that actually helped to keep rents stable for the best part of a decade. The problem is that buy-to-let has become substantially less attractive over the past couple of years, and as a result the market has begun to shrink.
First big problem was the tax change that disallowed the cost of finance as an expense. People who have large holdings and rent out through companies are OK. But ordinary individuals with the odd flat to rent now can’t set the mortgage against their rental income. [Say you rent for £1200 a month but have a £600 mortgage. You’d expect to pay tax on the £600 you have left. Fair enough. But as of 2017, you are taxed on the whole £1,200.] If you disallowed the cost of finance as a business expense across the board, every business in the UK would be bankrupt. So why penalise ordinary people who are supplying a much needed amenity?
This tax change caused some of the smallest landlords to quit. The rental market shrank, which meant rents were able to rise. Then you got the rise in mortgage interest rates. That puts a huge additional squeeze on buy-to-let landlords who invariably pay the highest rates and can’t take repayment loans. Then there’s soaring inflation on everything from energy bills to contractors’ labour and materials. Either rents have to rise even more to compensate or landlords quit the market. Both have been happening.
And now, looming over buy-to-let landlords, are the latest ideas for renter reform – principally the abolition of S21 no fault evictions. What do your family do if you die and they can’t pay inheritance tax, because they can’t sell your one bed buy-to- let flat with vacant possession? What if you want your flat back from a tenant to let a child or grandchild live in it? Removing S21 removes a persons control over their own property. Now renting feels like walking into a trap. You’ll be ok perhaps, if your tenants are reasonable people. But what if they aren’t?
Then there’s the crazy notion that we’ll all have to rip out perfectly good gas central heating and replace it with expensive and inefficient heat pumps. And finally there’s talk of rent caps. On top of all the above, this would be the last straw. No one rents out a property for charity. We all have to make money. If you don’t let us, we simply won’t do it. The market will shrink. The quality of what’s left to rent will fall.
Calling all landlords bastards is daft and unhelpful. As in any walk of life there are good, indifferent and terrible. It’s the good ones that these costs and restrictions will drive out. The bad are under the radar anyway, renting mouldy rooms to three and four people at a time, for cash.
Of course you are probably thinking, if people are selling out of rental in droves, why aren’t property prices coming down? The answer in London and other major cities is probably immigration. We have absorbed thousands of Hong Kong Chinese over the past couple of years, also thousands from Eastern Europe. The former at least are well-heeled enough to pay top prices for city flats which are often heavily marketed in places like Hong Kong, China and Singapore. The latter often rent in family groups where a number of working adults can club together to afford quite large rents. I’m not against this immigration . We need the energy and diversity these people are bringing in. But it’s inevitable that it comes at a cost – in the short term at least.
Isn’t all this a more reasonable analysis of the problem than a screaming renter, who appears not to understand economics or human behaviour and incentives? Follow his policies and he will be sleeping in a dumpster at 40 or moving back in with his parents. And it will be no ones fault but his own.
The writer evidently believes that selling council houses to their tenants and buying houses to let ‘winnows’ the housing stock.
So true. Every council house sold mysteriously disappears in a puff of smoke and no one ever lives in it again. And no house bought-to-let can ever be occupied by a tenant because
nobody’s allowed to rent iterr… because … because… it’s obvious!The writer evidently believes that selling council houses to their tenants and buying houses to let ‘winnows’ the housing stock.
So true. Every council house sold mysteriously disappears in a puff of smoke and no one ever lives in it again. And no house bought-to-let can ever be occupied by a tenant because
nobody’s allowed to rent iterr… because … because… it’s obvious!I’m not clear what this guy doesn’t like about renting. I rent and it’s great – if there’s a problem with the flat I call the agent and someone comes and fixes it. He seems to be annoyed about not being able to paint a wall which is hardly living in the grip of the Man. Is he really complaining that he can’t chase paper profits in a bubble market?
It’s the luck of the draw and you’ve lucked out with a good landlord. As a renter I have many horror stories.
Perhaps, but his complaint really is that instead of “wasting” money on rent as he sees it (in fact paying some part of his income to avoid sleeping in his car every night), he should be allowed to fund the purchase of an asset which he can later sell for profit (incidentally keeping the house price carousel going – he just wants to be on a horse).
He doesn’t ask for a house he can sell for profit, he simply wants a home that he doesn’t have to share with numerous others coming and going, and doesn’t want to live under the constant threat of eviction because the landlord wants to sell, move in family or massively hike the rent. It’s not greed he wants, merely stability
Interesting that you regard the aspiration to own an asset and hope for profit as “greed”. I don’t. I just don’t regard not being able to do so, or not being able to do so at a particular time, as a life-changing misfortune.
But most people don’t buy houses hoping to profit. They buy them so they have a family home they can put down roots and have some stability, as well as no longer having to hand over vast sums of money to a wealthy landlord and having nothing to show for it. The only people who buy properties simply to make a profit are investors and speculators
But most people don’t buy houses hoping to profit. They buy them so they have a family home they can put down roots and have some stability, as well as no longer having to hand over vast sums of money to a wealthy landlord and having nothing to show for it. The only people who buy properties simply to make a profit are investors and speculators
Interesting that you regard the aspiration to own an asset and hope for profit as “greed”. I don’t. I just don’t regard not being able to do so, or not being able to do so at a particular time, as a life-changing misfortune.
He doesn’t ask for a house he can sell for profit, he simply wants a home that he doesn’t have to share with numerous others coming and going, and doesn’t want to live under the constant threat of eviction because the landlord wants to sell, move in family or massively hike the rent. It’s not greed he wants, merely stability
“lucked out”!
Where did you learn that Ms Knight? Surely not in dear old England?
Perhaps, but his complaint really is that instead of “wasting” money on rent as he sees it (in fact paying some part of his income to avoid sleeping in his car every night), he should be allowed to fund the purchase of an asset which he can later sell for profit (incidentally keeping the house price carousel going – he just wants to be on a horse).
“lucked out”!
Where did you learn that Ms Knight? Surely not in dear old England?
It’s the luck of the draw and you’ve lucked out with a good landlord. As a renter I have many horror stories.
I’m not clear what this guy doesn’t like about renting. I rent and it’s great – if there’s a problem with the flat I call the agent and someone comes and fixes it. He seems to be annoyed about not being able to paint a wall which is hardly living in the grip of the Man. Is he really complaining that he can’t chase paper profits in a bubble market?
The right to buy social housing in the UK should end and there should be an expansion of such housing. Before right to buy council tenants benefitted from pooled historic rent – so renting such properties was affordable.
Trying to make private landlords and developers provide good quality affordable homes is unlikely to ever provide what is needed. They aren’t in their line of work to provide for social need.
The right to buy social housing in the UK should end and there should be an expansion of such housing. Before right to buy council tenants benefitted from pooled historic rent – so renting such properties was affordable.
Trying to make private landlords and developers provide good quality affordable homes is unlikely to ever provide what is needed. They aren’t in their line of work to provide for social need.
Another one of those authors who believes that exactly the same people have always occupied exactly the same position in life. That the well paid have never been poorly paid, that welfare recipients have never had a well-paid job, that the sick have never been well. That the old have never been young, that parents have never been children, that sensible middle-aged “salarymen” have never been exuberant youth or downright unsociable teenagers. And now we have the claim that homeowners have never rented or that landlords have never been tenants. That none of these people can possibly understand his life experience. This is why older people are able to look at social issues with more genuine understanding, real compassion and more common sense than many younger people who have a cartoonish understanding of the world and people.
Another one of those authors who believes that exactly the same people have always occupied exactly the same position in life. That the well paid have never been poorly paid, that welfare recipients have never had a well-paid job, that the sick have never been well. That the old have never been young, that parents have never been children, that sensible middle-aged “salarymen” have never been exuberant youth or downright unsociable teenagers. And now we have the claim that homeowners have never rented or that landlords have never been tenants. That none of these people can possibly understand his life experience. This is why older people are able to look at social issues with more genuine understanding, real compassion and more common sense than many younger people who have a cartoonish understanding of the world and people.
Here’s a thought from a Yank, an ex-Brit.
If you fly into Heathrow of a morning, as you do if you are flying in from Yankland, you see nothing but English countryside. No sign of any new housing. And all the houses are nicely treed, so they’ve been around for a while.
But if you fly from Seattle to Denver as I did last month you see numerous new housing developments abuilding on the edges of every size of city.
Hello Brits! Start building houses! You can do it!
You were flying over Berkshire. So what you are saying is that the Tory government should scrap the Green Belt policy in the shires around London. What a vote winner that would be for Mr. Sunak.
Of course the Green Belt should be scrapped. The CRE, National Trust and all the other NIMBYs and BANANAs (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) have ruined this country for far too many people for far too long. Of course, there was nothing wrong with building their own house, but once they’re in they want to pull up the ladder. Mr Churchill is spot on in his analysis.
Of course the Green Belt should be scrapped. The CRE, National Trust and all the other NIMBYs and BANANAs (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) have ruined this country for far too many people for far too long. Of course, there was nothing wrong with building their own house, but once they’re in they want to pull up the ladder. Mr Churchill is spot on in his analysis.
Britain (England especially, south-east England even more especially) is one of the most densely inhabited parts of the Earth. What you are missing is the vast tracts of not just farmland but actual wilderness that makes up the American continent. Trying to conserve the small remnants of ecologically diverse habitat is a struggle enough in a country the size of Wyoming (the least populous state in the Union) with a population twice that of California.
As at April 2022:
8.7% of land in England is of developed use, with 91.1% of non-developed use and the remaining 0.2% being vacant.(Source: gov.uk). There is plenty of land to build houses on, it just needs a government willing to risk NIMBY anger (and possibly being booted out at the next election) by channelling the spirit of 1945 and mandating government housebuilding on a huge scale.
So how come we’re already building on flood plains and in other unsuitable locations? You cannot discuss the availability of building land without considering such factors as water supply and infrastructure.
Flood plains are historically the most suitable locations to build
Flood plains are historically the most suitable locations to build
The problem is the writer doesn’t want a house in North Yorkshire or North Wales or Lincolnshire – where it perfectly possible for someone on average income to buy a home – he wants to live in London!
Indeed, he could apparently buy a house in areas of Italy for a few pounds. Most people have to live reasonably close to their place of work whereas writers can live almost anywhere as many constantly declare on the internet. Of course if he has a wife and children his choice is more constrained but apparently he does not so what’s stopping him if he wants a place of his own?
Indeed, he could apparently buy a house in areas of Italy for a few pounds. Most people have to live reasonably close to their place of work whereas writers can live almost anywhere as many constantly declare on the internet. Of course if he has a wife and children his choice is more constrained but apparently he does not so what’s stopping him if he wants a place of his own?
So how come we’re already building on flood plains and in other unsuitable locations? You cannot discuss the availability of building land without considering such factors as water supply and infrastructure.
The problem is the writer doesn’t want a house in North Yorkshire or North Wales or Lincolnshire – where it perfectly possible for someone on average income to buy a home – he wants to live in London!
I find that comment very confusing.
I was trying to put it in context for an American that the UK is (according to wikipedia) the 15th most densely populated country on earth. When you take out nations with about 10m people (Haiti for instance) it is 10th. It is not easy for an American or an Australian to appreciate how small the UK is when they live in continent sized countries.
I was trying to put it in context for an American that the UK is (according to wikipedia) the 15th most densely populated country on earth. When you take out nations with about 10m people (Haiti for instance) it is 10th. It is not easy for an American or an Australian to appreciate how small the UK is when they live in continent sized countries.
As at April 2022:
8.7% of land in England is of developed use, with 91.1% of non-developed use and the remaining 0.2% being vacant.(Source: gov.uk). There is plenty of land to build houses on, it just needs a government willing to risk NIMBY anger (and possibly being booted out at the next election) by channelling the spirit of 1945 and mandating government housebuilding on a huge scale.
I find that comment very confusing.
Absolutely right.
All the nice old towns and villages we wish to “protect” from development were at one time green fields. And they were designed and built by humans. With technologies inferior to ours. It is surely possible to create new towns and villages at least as good as what we value. It’s simply a question of will.
Instead, we are building rubbish “Prescot boxes” with tiny gardens and small rooms (John Prescot decreed what size houses and gardens the plebs should be allowed – while keeping a huge old house in Hull for himself). We have just about the worst housing in Europe and pay the highest prices for it.
The whole point of the immigration policies is to artificially boost GDP (as distinct from GDP per capita, which has been declining for fifteen years) and corporate profits by importing people and paying them badly. Building all the necessary infrastructure would completely defeat that purpose because the immigrants would then cost vastly more than they contribute. If they don’t already, that is.
As we know from Douglas Murray book and other sources, the mass immigration cost well over 100 billion per year.
Thing is though that Tory donors benefit, population pays the price and the alternative (Labour, un-Liberal un-Democrats and Scottish Nazis) are even worse.
As we know from Douglas Murray book and other sources, the mass immigration cost well over 100 billion per year.
Thing is though that Tory donors benefit, population pays the price and the alternative (Labour, un-Liberal un-Democrats and Scottish Nazis) are even worse.
The whole point of the immigration policies is to artificially boost GDP (as distinct from GDP per capita, which has been declining for fifteen years) and corporate profits by importing people and paying them badly. Building all the necessary infrastructure would completely defeat that purpose because the immigrants would then cost vastly more than they contribute. If they don’t already, that is.
Yes, the UK and the US are quite similar geographically and in scale, aren’t they?
But not in the beautiful countryside, I hope!
What “beautiful countryside” exactly?
There isn’t any until Barnard Castle and beyond.
What “beautiful countryside” exactly?
There isn’t any until Barnard Castle and beyond.
But why?
Surely stopping mass immigration is the way?
Never mind the small matter of USA having 4 times population of UK but 20? times land mass.
You were flying over Berkshire. So what you are saying is that the Tory government should scrap the Green Belt policy in the shires around London. What a vote winner that would be for Mr. Sunak.
Britain (England especially, south-east England even more especially) is one of the most densely inhabited parts of the Earth. What you are missing is the vast tracts of not just farmland but actual wilderness that makes up the American continent. Trying to conserve the small remnants of ecologically diverse habitat is a struggle enough in a country the size of Wyoming (the least populous state in the Union) with a population twice that of California.
Absolutely right.
All the nice old towns and villages we wish to “protect” from development were at one time green fields. And they were designed and built by humans. With technologies inferior to ours. It is surely possible to create new towns and villages at least as good as what we value. It’s simply a question of will.
Instead, we are building rubbish “Prescot boxes” with tiny gardens and small rooms (John Prescot decreed what size houses and gardens the plebs should be allowed – while keeping a huge old house in Hull for himself). We have just about the worst housing in Europe and pay the highest prices for it.
Yes, the UK and the US are quite similar geographically and in scale, aren’t they?
But not in the beautiful countryside, I hope!
But why?
Surely stopping mass immigration is the way?
Never mind the small matter of USA having 4 times population of UK but 20? times land mass.
Here’s a thought from a Yank, an ex-Brit.
If you fly into Heathrow of a morning, as you do if you are flying in from Yankland, you see nothing but English countryside. No sign of any new housing. And all the houses are nicely treed, so they’ve been around for a while.
But if you fly from Seattle to Denver as I did last month you see numerous new housing developments abuilding on the edges of every size of city.
Hello Brits! Start building houses! You can do it!
If you look at the international comparison of home ownership rates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate)
you will see that the countries with the highest rates of ownership include Cuba. Fidel Castro was a great believer in property ownership and passed a law giving everyone ownership of whatever dwelling they happened to inhabit. The policy has not been a success.
Down the bottom of the table, you will see Switzerland, Austria and Germany. Traditionally, the Government has tried to nudge the UK towards the Cuban end of the table. What is so wrong with being at the Swiss/Austrian/German end?
In Switzerland most people rent because it’s not tax efficient to buy. If you live in your own house, the tax office calculates how much you would pay in rent if you were to rent that same house, adds that to your income, and then taxes you as if you actually had that income. On top of that you also have to pay a wealth tax on the value of your combined assets, including your house.
But somebody must own the houses.
Yes I do, sadly only about 13 now, and mostly hovels at that, but it is something to do.
Yes I do, sadly only about 13 now, and mostly hovels at that, but it is something to do.
But somebody must own the houses.
In Switzerland most people rent because it’s not tax efficient to buy. If you live in your own house, the tax office calculates how much you would pay in rent if you were to rent that same house, adds that to your income, and then taxes you as if you actually had that income. On top of that you also have to pay a wealth tax on the value of your combined assets, including your house.
If you look at the international comparison of home ownership rates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate)
you will see that the countries with the highest rates of ownership include Cuba. Fidel Castro was a great believer in property ownership and passed a law giving everyone ownership of whatever dwelling they happened to inhabit. The policy has not been a success.
Down the bottom of the table, you will see Switzerland, Austria and Germany. Traditionally, the Government has tried to nudge the UK towards the Cuban end of the table. What is so wrong with being at the Swiss/Austrian/German end?
Well said. I wholeheartedly and painfully agree with your diagnosis, but the treatment plan sounds like another flaccid attempt to control the symptoms rather than the actual illness. Economic controls are an illusion. That should be pretty clear by now. Neoliberal mirages. Ashes in our mouth. The great fantasy of a society in which we can all be equally rich and fat and happy.
Unfortunately, this is the great struggle of human civilization for the last 10,000 years. The corruption of human greed. The idolatry of progress. The justification for elitism through meritocracy. These aren’t issues for local politics. Why do some people have so much and others are forced to the fringes?
It’s not because nature is cruel. It is indifferent. All the moralizing and rent control in the world cannot save us from reality.
Well said. I wholeheartedly and painfully agree with your diagnosis, but the treatment plan sounds like another flaccid attempt to control the symptoms rather than the actual illness. Economic controls are an illusion. That should be pretty clear by now. Neoliberal mirages. Ashes in our mouth. The great fantasy of a society in which we can all be equally rich and fat and happy.
Unfortunately, this is the great struggle of human civilization for the last 10,000 years. The corruption of human greed. The idolatry of progress. The justification for elitism through meritocracy. These aren’t issues for local politics. Why do some people have so much and others are forced to the fringes?
It’s not because nature is cruel. It is indifferent. All the moralizing and rent control in the world cannot save us from reality.
Very millennial
Very millennial
Reduce immigration, duh brain.
Immigration is like inflation and deficits.
Reducing it isn’t enough.
Immigration is like inflation and deficits.
Reducing it isn’t enough.
Reduce immigration, duh brain.
Agree with Peter B. There is nary a comment section online that does not woe the millions of immigrants yet hardly any actual articles mention it. For why? There is non stop house building in my neck of the woods, has been for five years or more, and more in the pipeline. So clearly the gov. is “expecting” more newbies. It is all too true there is pitifully little social housing or even affordable non social ones. Our latest estate (tacked on to an ancient village in a most inappropriate way) starts prices at half a mill. Just stop immigration and allow things to settle and absorb before starting again.
Agree with Peter B. There is nary a comment section online that does not woe the millions of immigrants yet hardly any actual articles mention it. For why? There is non stop house building in my neck of the woods, has been for five years or more, and more in the pipeline. So clearly the gov. is “expecting” more newbies. It is all too true there is pitifully little social housing or even affordable non social ones. Our latest estate (tacked on to an ancient village in a most inappropriate way) starts prices at half a mill. Just stop immigration and allow things to settle and absorb before starting again.
I read the first 2 paragraphs before skimming the rest; why is it in any housing discussion, writers can’t bring themselves to mention immigration? Yes enough houses aren’t being build but considering the ‘demand’ is almost entirely attributable to one cause, can we just stop publish meaningless articles like this?
I read the first 2 paragraphs before skimming the rest; why is it in any housing discussion, writers can’t bring themselves to mention immigration? Yes enough houses aren’t being build but considering the ‘demand’ is almost entirely attributable to one cause, can we just stop publish meaningless articles like this?
Uggh.
The problem is real, but it has two obvious causes:
Housing supply has not kept pace with demandThe Bank of England has printed money like there’s no tomorrow
Uggh.
The problem is real, but it has two obvious causes:
Housing supply has not kept pace with demandThe Bank of England has printed money like there’s no tomorrow
The tragedy here is that this author still thinks the solution to over-regulation is more regulation. When will young liberal types learn basic economics? The only solution to increasing housing costs is to build more housing. So, next question – which park or historic building would you like to bulldoze to do that? And once you’ve done that, how do you prevent high density low income housing from becoming a cesspool of anti social behavior? England’s housing problems have roots in problems that superficially appear to be unrelated to housing.
The tragedy here is that this author still thinks the solution to over-regulation is more regulation. When will young liberal types learn basic economics? The only solution to increasing housing costs is to build more housing. So, next question – which park or historic building would you like to bulldoze to do that? And once you’ve done that, how do you prevent high density low income housing from becoming a cesspool of anti social behavior? England’s housing problems have roots in problems that superficially appear to be unrelated to housing.
‘The ‘smug mortgaged’ need to feel our pain.’Believe me, Joel, I don’t.
You and your screwed generation have my genuine sympathies, but the people royally to blame for this are:
a. the delusional, headline inflation obsessed ‘experts’ in central banks who for the past 25 years have suffocated the economy and inflated an asset price bubble with their blind, delusional fixation on near-zero interest rates and QE and;
b. the shysters of Blairo-Cameronite-Sunakist Government and the Blob over the same period, who have self-interestedly failed to reform the UK’s obscenely profitable house-building cartel – which deliberately constrain supply of their nasty, squeezed, cramped jerry-built cake-boxes to keep prices sky-high – while at the same time importing ten million more overseas migrants to, in New Labour’s proud boast, ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ and ‘prevent wage inflation’.
‘The ‘smug mortgaged’ need to feel our pain.’Believe me, Joel, I don’t.
You and your screwed generation have my genuine sympathies, but the people royally to blame for this are:
a. the delusional, headline inflation obsessed ‘experts’ in central banks who for the past 25 years have suffocated the economy and inflated an asset price bubble with their blind, delusional fixation on near-zero interest rates and QE and;
b. the shysters of Blairo-Cameronite-Sunakist Government and the Blob over the same period, who have self-interestedly failed to reform the UK’s obscenely profitable house-building cartel – which deliberately constrain supply of their nasty, squeezed, cramped jerry-built cake-boxes to keep prices sky-high – while at the same time importing ten million more overseas migrants to, in New Labour’s proud boast, ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ and ‘prevent wage inflation’.
Maybe I’m missing something, but do you not have lumber, nails, cement for footings, sheet rock, bathroom fixtures and plumbing in the UK? No arms and legs? No brains to figure out how to build your own homes? I guess all of those capable chaps flew the coop long ago. My suggestion is to man up and soon.
There’s a reason the houses fall apart every time a decent storm hits in the states, and it’s that attitude to building and the shoddy end result that inevitably happens
There’s a reason the houses fall apart every time a decent storm hits in the states, and it’s that attitude to building and the shoddy end result that inevitably happens
Maybe I’m missing something, but do you not have lumber, nails, cement for footings, sheet rock, bathroom fixtures and plumbing in the UK? No arms and legs? No brains to figure out how to build your own homes? I guess all of those capable chaps flew the coop long ago. My suggestion is to man up and soon.
All landlords are b a s t a r d s seems to be a succinct summary of government thinking.
Move to Canada. Plentry room there.
🙂
And yet somehow they also have sky-high prices in the places where people actually want to live (Toronto, Vancouver).
Whether the Author’s analysis of the housing problems many younger people face over simplistic or not it has to worry us if this is a growing inter-generational fault-line with some justification.
There can be no doubt things are much tougher for them than in my late baby boomer demographic. Mortgages hadn’t raced away from average wages, supply was better balanced etc. We then benefitted from considerable house price inflation subsequently leaving many of us the most wealthy our DNA will have ever been.
Whether deliberate or not it does look like we pulled the drawbridge up behind us.
‘Right to Buy’ was not the problem. The deliberate blocking of the investment of those receipts into replacement social housing was. The way Building/construction companies deliberately sit on ‘land banks’ rather than progressing what has already been planning approved another example of policy we could correct if we chose.
Some on the Right look to blame immigration and flip the argument back onto the Young as they tend to be less antagonistic about immigration. Classic deflection whilst keeping that drawbridge nice and tightly pulled up. And then no doubt as we reach our dotage and need care agencies to help us much more we’ll belatedly suddenly realise why we need a Younger demographic prepared to pay the taxes and available to do the caring. Karma is coming.
I rather expect that ‘land banks’ are necessary for the builders because planning approval takes so long. If planning approval took only 3 months rather than years then land banks would be much reduced. Plus there are plenty of locations in the Green Belts that could be built on without destroying the good bits. All we need to do is change the planning laws…
3 years is rather optimistic, according to developers I have spoken to. In commercial property, one investor (who was my landlord) told me he’s waited twenty years for some approvals and accepts that as a given cost of business. Not because the council is examining them carefully – just delays like adjourning for six months after each short hearing etc.
3 years is rather optimistic, according to developers I have spoken to. In commercial property, one investor (who was my landlord) told me he’s waited twenty years for some approvals and accepts that as a given cost of business. Not because the council is examining them carefully – just delays like adjourning for six months after each short hearing etc.
You say “Some on the Right look to blame immigration”. I would express it as some on the Left deny a link to immigration. The author harks back to the 80’s, but immigration was in the tens of thousands back then. Now it is well over a million and a large proportion of them want to live in London.
Many of them certainly do want to live in London. As a resident of a North London suburb I have seen my entire neighbourhood transformed since the floodgates were opened by Blair’s Labour government in 2004. Citizens of the former Soviet Bloc flooded in – eager to enjoy that ‘better life’ lacking in the post-communist wasteland. This is hardly an isolated instance – London is becoming more East European year on year.
The virtue-signalling Left, eager as ever to promote migration as an unquestionable good, were happy to let the working and lower middle class communities take the brunt. The housing crisis has hit young professionals hard and so it has become a much talked about issue – yet their left liberal temperament renders them reluctant to face up to the costs of mass migration.
Don’t forget that most young leftists are middle class kids born to parents who were already in their mid-thirties – so they’ll inherit the unearned property £millions in their fifties. What’s not to like?
Wherever one might see oneself on the political spectrum there is no doubt inheritance perpetuates inequality and reduces social mobility. The one thing worth remembering at the moment though is an increasing number of baby boomers with property will live long enough to need social care, which is means-tested and full payment needed down to £24k in assets. Just to help – a decent care home or care package costs c£1500 a wk and rising with labour shortage. So much property wealth will diminish – unless of course a different approach to funding social care is found. The v rich will undoubtedly not feel this, but it’s going to certainly squeeze many.
“wherever one might see oneself on the political spectrum there is no doubt inheritance perpetuates inequality” – I couldn’t disagree more. Set to the side for the moment the assumption that ‘inequality’ is a bad thing, and remember that “inheritance” is another word for: *being allowed to do what you like with the stuff that is yours.*
The fact that we all give it to our families (either at death or during life) is not a problem but something to be celebrated – people *should* love their families and *should* want to use what they have worked for, to help their families. We already have high levels of family disintegration, and we should be celebrating any evidence of family connection that we can. Arguments against inheritance are just another front in the left’s long-running war against entrepreneurs and families.
“wherever one might see oneself on the political spectrum there is no doubt inheritance perpetuates inequality” – I couldn’t disagree more. Set to the side for the moment the assumption that ‘inequality’ is a bad thing, and remember that “inheritance” is another word for: *being allowed to do what you like with the stuff that is yours.*
The fact that we all give it to our families (either at death or during life) is not a problem but something to be celebrated – people *should* love their families and *should* want to use what they have worked for, to help their families. We already have high levels of family disintegration, and we should be celebrating any evidence of family connection that we can. Arguments against inheritance are just another front in the left’s long-running war against entrepreneurs and families.
Wherever one might see oneself on the political spectrum there is no doubt inheritance perpetuates inequality and reduces social mobility. The one thing worth remembering at the moment though is an increasing number of baby boomers with property will live long enough to need social care, which is means-tested and full payment needed down to £24k in assets. Just to help – a decent care home or care package costs c£1500 a wk and rising with labour shortage. So much property wealth will diminish – unless of course a different approach to funding social care is found. The v rich will undoubtedly not feel this, but it’s going to certainly squeeze many.
Yet another gymnastic contortion that seems to forget the Right wing been in power for 13yrs, and said Brexit would help reduce immigration – it’s 4 times higher!
What’ve you been doing? Getting Brexit Done? Levelling up? Or err Taking Back Control perhaps
Utter joke.
Looks like I rattled schoolmaster Watson’s cage again!
He knows how weak Labour are on the migration issue so that conversation has to be shut down as quickly as possible.
They’d have to be v weak wouldn’t they to have immigration 4 times higher than pre-Brexit.
Did not the Right Take Back Control? Now please resubmit one’s homework tmoro please.
They’d have to be v weak wouldn’t they to have immigration 4 times higher than pre-Brexit.
Did not the Right Take Back Control? Now please resubmit one’s homework tmoro please.
Looks like I rattled schoolmaster Watson’s cage again!
He knows how weak Labour are on the migration issue so that conversation has to be shut down as quickly as possible.
Don’t forget that most young leftists are middle class kids born to parents who were already in their mid-thirties – so they’ll inherit the unearned property £millions in their fifties. What’s not to like?
Yet another gymnastic contortion that seems to forget the Right wing been in power for 13yrs, and said Brexit would help reduce immigration – it’s 4 times higher!
What’ve you been doing? Getting Brexit Done? Levelling up? Or err Taking Back Control perhaps
Utter joke.
I also suspect Mr Watson’s age means he might have missed the worst excesses of the ERM-inspired mortgage apocalypse of the early 90s, which bankrupted many of my Gen X first-time buying contemporaries. It wasn’t all milk and honey in the late 80s / early 90s.
Slightly after as you were asking, but it was Lawson’s latter economic policies that created the recession and early 90s negative equity for many. So important folks have a rounded view of that bastion of Right wing economics too. A pattern here?
We could play the blame game all day – Major’s Europhilia prompted Black Wednesday when the dogs on the street knew it would lead to a catastrophe, ditto Maastricht.
Nope, it was our membership of the ERM and the upwards of 10% interest rates that businesses and householders had to pay as a consequence.
Recessions are a natural part of a free market economy, just as much as booms. The 80s boom was always going to end like that eventually. Average out the boom and recession before passing judgement.
Kicking the can down the road by trying to avoid recessions isn’t the solution. It’s why we’re where we are today – things like zombie companies and low productivity.
We could play the blame game all day – Major’s Europhilia prompted Black Wednesday when the dogs on the street knew it would lead to a catastrophe, ditto Maastricht.
Nope, it was our membership of the ERM and the upwards of 10% interest rates that businesses and householders had to pay as a consequence.
Recessions are a natural part of a free market economy, just as much as booms. The 80s boom was always going to end like that eventually. Average out the boom and recession before passing judgement.
Kicking the can down the road by trying to avoid recessions isn’t the solution. It’s why we’re where we are today – things like zombie companies and low productivity.
Slightly after as you were asking, but it was Lawson’s latter economic policies that created the recession and early 90s negative equity for many. So important folks have a rounded view of that bastion of Right wing economics too. A pattern here?
1million ‘net’ immigration apparently last year (4 times the pre-Brexit ‘net’ position), and under a Tory Govt with Braverman and Patel as Home Secs and Bojo, Mad Liz and Sunak as PMs. (Small Boats a marginal part of that). And you want mention the Left? Err sorry but Tories and the Right been in charge for 13yrs.
One increasingly thinks the Right doesn’t actually want to solve the immigration conundrum. It secretly wants to perpetuate an issue it can weaponise to sow division and excuse itself on the housing crisis whilst also using to restrain wages.
It was New Labour through Blair, O’Donnell and Portes that “weaponised” mass immigration, under some Utilitarian nonsense. The law of unitended consequences, you’ve priced your voting base out of home ownership while making Boomers/Tories very wealthy. Congratulations, you’ve been the capitalists useful idiots.
Again, Mr Watson sees what he wants to see. The cat’s cradle of New Labour laws introduced in the late 90s / early 00’s always meant it was going to be virtually impossible to correct their immigration policies, especially after the 2004 accession state decision. Blair was an expert at salting the fields / leaving behind booby-traps for the other side. He was helped, of course, by Tories entranced by his success and / or too thick to do anything about it.
We’ve left the EU now so it’s very easy to halt immigration. However doing so would mean businesses would have to increase wages, and house prices would likely drop. Therefore the Tories have actually increased immigration to record levels
Groan…yet another Right winger blaming someone else and pulling gymnastic contortions to conveniently forget they’ve been in power for 13yrs, got Brexit done etc etc. What an utter joke.
A key reason we’ve had immigration 4 times that pre-Brexit is too many right wing supporters are stupid enough to buy into and cheer the demonising language and nonsense about the ECHR assuming that’ll solve anything. Like chucking a bone to distract the Guard dog whilst you walk in the front door.
We’ve left the EU now so it’s very easy to halt immigration. However doing so would mean businesses would have to increase wages, and house prices would likely drop. Therefore the Tories have actually increased immigration to record levels
Groan…yet another Right winger blaming someone else and pulling gymnastic contortions to conveniently forget they’ve been in power for 13yrs, got Brexit done etc etc. What an utter joke.
A key reason we’ve had immigration 4 times that pre-Brexit is too many right wing supporters are stupid enough to buy into and cheer the demonising language and nonsense about the ECHR assuming that’ll solve anything. Like chucking a bone to distract the Guard dog whilst you walk in the front door.
Again, Mr Watson sees what he wants to see. The cat’s cradle of New Labour laws introduced in the late 90s / early 00’s always meant it was going to be virtually impossible to correct their immigration policies, especially after the 2004 accession state decision. Blair was an expert at salting the fields / leaving behind booby-traps for the other side. He was helped, of course, by Tories entranced by his success and / or too thick to do anything about it.
There is a gulf between many right-wing voters – who tend to be traditionalists – and right wing power groups (CBI, Conservative party, Sky/Fox/Daily Mail/Telegraph etc). The former are not keen on immigration, whilst the latter greatly value them as they lower their business and domestic servant wages, and because ‘they are just so hard working’ (never mind that this is down to their economic insecurity – poor and easily sacked).
Yes an honest distillation DA.
But I’d add the Right Wing politicians know this but aren’t honest about it. They don’t want to be honest about the trade-off
Yes an honest distillation DA.
But I’d add the Right Wing politicians know this but aren’t honest about it. They don’t want to be honest about the trade-off
It was New Labour through Blair, O’Donnell and Portes that “weaponised” mass immigration, under some Utilitarian nonsense. The law of unitended consequences, you’ve priced your voting base out of home ownership while making Boomers/Tories very wealthy. Congratulations, you’ve been the capitalists useful idiots.
There is a gulf between many right-wing voters – who tend to be traditionalists – and right wing power groups (CBI, Conservative party, Sky/Fox/Daily Mail/Telegraph etc). The former are not keen on immigration, whilst the latter greatly value them as they lower their business and domestic servant wages, and because ‘they are just so hard working’ (never mind that this is down to their economic insecurity – poor and easily sacked).
Many of them certainly do want to live in London. As a resident of a North London suburb I have seen my entire neighbourhood transformed since the floodgates were opened by Blair’s Labour government in 2004. Citizens of the former Soviet Bloc flooded in – eager to enjoy that ‘better life’ lacking in the post-communist wasteland. This is hardly an isolated instance – London is becoming more East European year on year.
The virtue-signalling Left, eager as ever to promote migration as an unquestionable good, were happy to let the working and lower middle class communities take the brunt. The housing crisis has hit young professionals hard and so it has become a much talked about issue – yet their left liberal temperament renders them reluctant to face up to the costs of mass migration.
I also suspect Mr Watson’s age means he might have missed the worst excesses of the ERM-inspired mortgage apocalypse of the early 90s, which bankrupted many of my Gen X first-time buying contemporaries. It wasn’t all milk and honey in the late 80s / early 90s.
1million ‘net’ immigration apparently last year (4 times the pre-Brexit ‘net’ position), and under a Tory Govt with Braverman and Patel as Home Secs and Bojo, Mad Liz and Sunak as PMs. (Small Boats a marginal part of that). And you want mention the Left? Err sorry but Tories and the Right been in charge for 13yrs.
One increasingly thinks the Right doesn’t actually want to solve the immigration conundrum. It secretly wants to perpetuate an issue it can weaponise to sow division and excuse itself on the housing crisis whilst also using to restrain wages.
The Left’s obession with mass immigration needs questioning. You can’t keep on importing people, immigrants will also require housing, get old and sick, and need care.
We have seen an increase of around 7 million people in 30 years, in an era of mostly low interest rates. For the most part we have a low wage, low skill, part time service economy. Our productivity and GDP per head is falling, low interest rates benefit those who are cash/asset rich, this coupled with shortfall in house building has led to this sorry state.
Not too much of a shock as to why the Tories have done next to nothing to address this.
Karma is already here.
A little while back I listened to James O’Brien tell a caller that ‘studies’ have shown that immigration has little or no effect on house prices and rents.
That Adam Smith, eh? What a plonker!
Yes, we probably listened to the same show.
King of snowflakes knows he is right.
He wrote books about it….
Yes, we probably listened to the same show.
King of snowflakes knows he is right.
He wrote books about it….
Not sure the Left has any such obsession. In fact quite the contrary. It may prefer different language and at least some competency in immigration policy I grant you that.
1million ‘net’ immigration last 12mths – 4 times pre-Brexit. The Right been in charge. What are you up to? Is this deliberate incompetency or a secret plan to sow division? You’re lot are in charge and have been for 13yrs so answers please.
I’ve mentioned in both my comments that the Tories are more than happy with this state of affairs. I’m not sure of your position, in your first comment you ask for more immigration, while in the other two says it’s the Conservative government(s) that have failed to get it down. So why aren’t you happy?
Oh btw I didn’t vote for this government, I spoiled my ballot paper.
I haven’t asked for more immigration. I’m chilled about a reasonable level and a mature national discussion about what that should be and how we ‘naturalise’ people coming to our Country in a helpful to all way. I’m chilled with us doing our bit for genuine asylum seekers in our great British tradition. I’m chilled with purely economic migrants being humanely and rapidly processed and helped back home. I very much much want us to hunt down the traffickers and all those involved in benefitting from trafficking.
I’d like the demonising language to stop now and some basic humane competency to become the predominant focus. And I’d like the Right to admit it that it uses demonising language and incompetent policies to sow division to it’s own benefit and been using that playbook for years.
It wasn’t really that much of the problem until mass immigration became New Labour ideology, without the electoral consent (talk about having an honest conservation). The incompetence began with that.
What number is acceptable to you, hundreds of thousands per year for another thirty years?
I would disagree here.
People voted for Blair in huge numbers.
Yes population is stupid, so here we go.
Problem is both Labour and Conservatives, for different reasons, support mass immigration.
Mass immigration was not a Labour pledge it was a civil service idea promoted by Gus O’Donnell and Jonathan Portes.
Yes all the major parties support mass immigration.
Mass immigration was not a Labour pledge it was a civil service idea promoted by Gus O’Donnell and Jonathan Portes.
Yes all the major parties support mass immigration.
Forget New Labour – it’s a lifetime ago. Why is it 4 times higher than pre-Brexit when we, supposedly, took back control? If new Lab was yesterday the critique would be fair enough but…
As regards what may be the correct number – our demographics and skills shortages suggest it’ll have to be the low hundred thousands, but can be much better managed. Nonetheless a conversation we should have nationally and that then has to inform Housing policy. Instead this Govt quadruples it and has no housing policy.
If we decide nationally otherwise then a v honest conversation is needed about the consequences for things we all expect that economic growth gives us. A poorer country is unlikely to be what lots of folks happy with, so an honest discussion likely, IMO, to result in a better understanding we need a decent level but well managed.
One of the things about immigrants is they typically work harder and are more religious than us Brits. One of the interesting things is the Right doesn’t seem to grasp they are probably more natural Right Wing supporters in due course (look at Sunak, Braverman etc) – as the Republicans are beginning to grasp in the US with those of hispanic heritage.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I would disagree here.
People voted for Blair in huge numbers.
Yes population is stupid, so here we go.
Problem is both Labour and Conservatives, for different reasons, support mass immigration.
Forget New Labour – it’s a lifetime ago. Why is it 4 times higher than pre-Brexit when we, supposedly, took back control? If new Lab was yesterday the critique would be fair enough but…
As regards what may be the correct number – our demographics and skills shortages suggest it’ll have to be the low hundred thousands, but can be much better managed. Nonetheless a conversation we should have nationally and that then has to inform Housing policy. Instead this Govt quadruples it and has no housing policy.
If we decide nationally otherwise then a v honest conversation is needed about the consequences for things we all expect that economic growth gives us. A poorer country is unlikely to be what lots of folks happy with, so an honest discussion likely, IMO, to result in a better understanding we need a decent level but well managed.
One of the things about immigrants is they typically work harder and are more religious than us Brits. One of the interesting things is the Right doesn’t seem to grasp they are probably more natural Right Wing supporters in due course (look at Sunak, Braverman etc) – as the Republicans are beginning to grasp in the US with those of hispanic heritage.
You might start with the Eastern European visa scandal that resulted in Beverley Hughes’ resignation back in 2005.
Yes to all that
It wasn’t really that much of the problem until mass immigration became New Labour ideology, without the electoral consent (talk about having an honest conservation). The incompetence began with that.
What number is acceptable to you, hundreds of thousands per year for another thirty years?
You might start with the Eastern European visa scandal that resulted in Beverley Hughes’ resignation back in 2005.
Yes to all that
I haven’t asked for more immigration. I’m chilled about a reasonable level and a mature national discussion about what that should be and how we ‘naturalise’ people coming to our Country in a helpful to all way. I’m chilled with us doing our bit for genuine asylum seekers in our great British tradition. I’m chilled with purely economic migrants being humanely and rapidly processed and helped back home. I very much much want us to hunt down the traffickers and all those involved in benefitting from trafficking.
I’d like the demonising language to stop now and some basic humane competency to become the predominant focus. And I’d like the Right to admit it that it uses demonising language and incompetent policies to sow division to it’s own benefit and been using that playbook for years.
The ‘Right’ hasn’t been in charge here since the late ninetee eighties.
Just like the Communists saying it never failed, just they never were really allowed to be in charge. An old Playbook excuse.
Just like the Communists saying it never failed, just they never were really allowed to be in charge. An old Playbook excuse.
I’ve mentioned in both my comments that the Tories are more than happy with this state of affairs. I’m not sure of your position, in your first comment you ask for more immigration, while in the other two says it’s the Conservative government(s) that have failed to get it down. So why aren’t you happy?
Oh btw I didn’t vote for this government, I spoiled my ballot paper.
The ‘Right’ hasn’t been in charge here since the late ninetee eighties.
Many on the left may have more sympathy with immigrants (not so much the working class left, I’d imagine) – but the right is actively desirous of them. Immigrants staff their businesses on the cheap; enable the NHS to run on the cheap, and the areas they tend to live in do not have immigrant problems.
You are right.
But I would add: so far.
Unfortunately, so called Conservatives don’t look beyond few years ahead.
Just remember China policy of Cameron and Osborne.
You are right.
But I would add: so far.
Unfortunately, so called Conservatives don’t look beyond few years ahead.
Just remember China policy of Cameron and Osborne.
Whatever the Left may or may not be obsessing about right now not relevant. They aren’t in power and haven’t been for 13yrs in case you hadn’t noticed. It’s utterly pathetic for right wing supporters to start deflecting onto others. The Right been in charge and it’s up 4 times more than pre-Brexit this last year and it’s not anything to do with rubber dinghies. Doh! Why?
I’ll you why. Just another Right Wing contradiction they can’t be honest about.
You are doing a fair bit of deflecting yourself. For the fourth time, the Tories don’t care and neither does Labour or the Lib Dems and that is why I DIDN’T vote for them. They are taking the electorare for fools.
You are doing a fair bit of deflecting yourself. For the fourth time, the Tories don’t care and neither does Labour or the Lib Dems and that is why I DIDN’T vote for them. They are taking the electorare for fools.
A little while back I listened to James O’Brien tell a caller that ‘studies’ have shown that immigration has little or no effect on house prices and rents.
That Adam Smith, eh? What a plonker!
Not sure the Left has any such obsession. In fact quite the contrary. It may prefer different language and at least some competency in immigration policy I grant you that.
1million ‘net’ immigration last 12mths – 4 times pre-Brexit. The Right been in charge. What are you up to? Is this deliberate incompetency or a secret plan to sow division? You’re lot are in charge and have been for 13yrs so answers please.
Many on the left may have more sympathy with immigrants (not so much the working class left, I’d imagine) – but the right is actively desirous of them. Immigrants staff their businesses on the cheap; enable the NHS to run on the cheap, and the areas they tend to live in do not have immigrant problems.
Whatever the Left may or may not be obsessing about right now not relevant. They aren’t in power and haven’t been for 13yrs in case you hadn’t noticed. It’s utterly pathetic for right wing supporters to start deflecting onto others. The Right been in charge and it’s up 4 times more than pre-Brexit this last year and it’s not anything to do with rubber dinghies. Doh! Why?
I’ll you why. Just another Right Wing contradiction they can’t be honest about.
When I first came to London in the early eighties the house I lived in contained seven people. In the nineties it was converted into a family home. Now there are two elderly people living in it. The same is true of many, many other houses in the area.
When I moved to London in the late seventies big 19th and early 20th century inner London town houses were eagerly bought up by developer/landlords (many of them immigrants) who wasted no time in converting them into small flats and bedsits – the better to maximise rental income. Much of this subdivided accomodation was shoddy, badly maintained and geared to quick profits for the landords (ie. keep tenants in the building for a few years then sell up when the time is ripe).
By the way, are you hinting that elderly couples should be subjected to compulsory purchase orders and have their homes taken from them if they are deemed to have more than their fair share of living space? I suppose ‘blame the boomers’ is more palatable to the Left-leaning mind than ‘blame mass migration’.
No – I myself live in a £1 million+ house with no mortgage. However, I recognise that this wealth is unearned – a result of immigration and QE – and ought somehow to be at least partly returned, perhaps through a reform of council tax, the proceeds being used to solve some of the problems that these policies have created..
Perhaps, rather than relying on bureaucrats to do the work, you could sell your £1 million+ house and downsize. All the unearned income released by the sale could be used directly to help others in need of a home (at the same time assuaging your sense of guilt).
Or, perhaps, signalling your virtue by recognising that this wealth is unearned is as far as you need to go.
Perhaps, rather than relying on bureaucrats to do the work, you could sell your £1 million+ house and downsize. All the unearned income released by the sale could be used directly to help others in need of a home (at the same time assuaging your sense of guilt).
Or, perhaps, signalling your virtue by recognising that this wealth is unearned is as far as you need to go.
No – I myself live in a £1 million+ house with no mortgage. However, I recognise that this wealth is unearned – a result of immigration and QE – and ought somehow to be at least partly returned, perhaps through a reform of council tax, the proceeds being used to solve some of the problems that these policies have created..
Good point.
There should be tax incentives to move old people into smaller properties.
Maybe by setting stamp duty to zero when you downsize?
At the moment you are expected to pay a lot to move.
But many oldies are asset rich but cash poor.
Another good point! For someone with such ungrounded and transparently prejudicial hatred for nurses and refugees, you do have a lot of sensible economic ideas!
I think the reality is a house move when you are quite old v daunting and they get stuck with it becoming too late to make such a move. Classically many older folks then have houses less suited to increasing immobility issues too. I’m not sure it’s so much about financial incentives, although that may help, more the psychology of moving. One I suspect as we witness the struggles of others we grasp the move to a more suitable late stage of life home has to be done earlier. Start looking for the Bungalow.
Yes true and a house has idiosyncratic value as a place bound up with your identity and all that. Perhaps offering financial incentives for them to accpet (properly-vetted) lodgers or something would be better..
Yes true and a house has idiosyncratic value as a place bound up with your identity and all that. Perhaps offering financial incentives for them to accpet (properly-vetted) lodgers or something would be better..
Another good point! For someone with such ungrounded and transparently prejudicial hatred for nurses and refugees, you do have a lot of sensible economic ideas!
I think the reality is a house move when you are quite old v daunting and they get stuck with it becoming too late to make such a move. Classically many older folks then have houses less suited to increasing immobility issues too. I’m not sure it’s so much about financial incentives, although that may help, more the psychology of moving. One I suspect as we witness the struggles of others we grasp the move to a more suitable late stage of life home has to be done earlier. Start looking for the Bungalow.
At the moment you are expected to pay a lot to move.
But many oldies are asset rich but cash poor.
When I moved to London in the late seventies big 19th and early 20th century inner London town houses were eagerly bought up by developer/landlords (many of them immigrants) who wasted no time in converting them into small flats and bedsits – the better to maximise rental income. Much of this subdivided accomodation was shoddy, badly maintained and geared to quick profits for the landords (ie. keep tenants in the building for a few years then sell up when the time is ripe).
By the way, are you hinting that elderly couples should be subjected to compulsory purchase orders and have their homes taken from them if they are deemed to have more than their fair share of living space? I suppose ‘blame the boomers’ is more palatable to the Left-leaning mind than ‘blame mass migration’.
Good point.
There should be tax incentives to move old people into smaller properties.
Maybe by setting stamp duty to zero when you downsize?
I rather expect that ‘land banks’ are necessary for the builders because planning approval takes so long. If planning approval took only 3 months rather than years then land banks would be much reduced. Plus there are plenty of locations in the Green Belts that could be built on without destroying the good bits. All we need to do is change the planning laws…
You say “Some on the Right look to blame immigration”. I would express it as some on the Left deny a link to immigration. The author harks back to the 80’s, but immigration was in the tens of thousands back then. Now it is well over a million and a large proportion of them want to live in London.
The Left’s obession with mass immigration needs questioning. You can’t keep on importing people, immigrants will also require housing, get old and sick, and need care.
We have seen an increase of around 7 million people in 30 years, in an era of mostly low interest rates. For the most part we have a low wage, low skill, part time service economy. Our productivity and GDP per head is falling, low interest rates benefit those who are cash/asset rich, this coupled with shortfall in house building has led to this sorry state.
Not too much of a shock as to why the Tories have done next to nothing to address this.
Karma is already here.
When I first came to London in the early eighties the house I lived in contained seven people. In the nineties it was converted into a family home. Now there are two elderly people living in it. The same is true of many, many other houses in the area.
Whether the Author’s analysis of the housing problems many younger people face over simplistic or not it has to worry us if this is a growing inter-generational fault-line with some justification.
There can be no doubt things are much tougher for them than in my late baby boomer demographic. Mortgages hadn’t raced away from average wages, supply was better balanced etc. We then benefitted from considerable house price inflation subsequently leaving many of us the most wealthy our DNA will have ever been.
Whether deliberate or not it does look like we pulled the drawbridge up behind us.
‘Right to Buy’ was not the problem. The deliberate blocking of the investment of those receipts into replacement social housing was. The way Building/construction companies deliberately sit on ‘land banks’ rather than progressing what has already been planning approved another example of policy we could correct if we chose.
Some on the Right look to blame immigration and flip the argument back onto the Young as they tend to be less antagonistic about immigration. Classic deflection whilst keeping that drawbridge nice and tightly pulled up. And then no doubt as we reach our dotage and need care agencies to help us much more we’ll belatedly suddenly realise why we need a Younger demographic prepared to pay the taxes and available to do the caring. Karma is coming.
I do not know the age of this writer – but I despair to think a generation of his ilk will be in charge later. What a bunch of whining, self pitying, looser.
I own half a dozen houses – mostly cheap ones, very cheap by UK standards, like the best equaling a one bed flat in London, but still nice.
I turned 40 living in a camp in the very remote Far North – I owned a 25 year old truck and a dog and about $1300. I had been living alone in the wilds about the last 3 months and realized – nothing is as miserable and disreputable as a broke old guy. When winter drove me out I had decided to make a bunch of money, and so I did – same as you could. But I know you modern people are too soft – so you will just self pity and whine like bit* hes.
So I went back to my wife who lived in a USA city and got 2 full time jobs in construction. 84 hours a week, plus commuting. (as a Mountain man I was hard as iron, as we are living like that in the prime years of our 40s.)
I worked 12 hours of Hard work, construction, 7 days a week, for 5.5 years. My longest spell without even one day off was about 9 months. If there was work and I was not injured I worked. Commuting took an hour or a couple a day too. I tried to get 8 hours in bed a night. I ate, worked, slept, commuted. 5.5 years, 12 – 13 hours a day. My wife paid all the bills and did laundry and all the rest. I invested the money well as I made it. I spent NOTHING, nor did she. I had plenty of money at the end to buy a nice 3 bed house for cash in London if I wished, a Nice one (I am from London) – after I had paid all my taxes, if I wanted to. But instead I went off in another direction, which turned out pretty weird – but eventually I used it to buy some great houses, again in USA.
5.5 years… it used me up in a lot of ways – after being ‘Bushed’ from solitary living in the bush for years, to aching body doing miserable, painful, construction till I was spent every day….I had a weird decade – went from poor bush man to quite well off –
But then I have never been a Pu**y.
Also – you useless young people – how the hel l do you think you can survive and make it in life if you are not married? It takes two committed people to make it in life – and I just add – I just lived apart from my wife during my bush years – and would come out in hard winter and stay with her – no way I could have been without a wife – it is not natural for a human to not be married.
Not many building sites are open for 12 hours on a Sunday, and there are rules around construction noise after certain hours and at weekends. Also somebody working those hours would be shattered and their quality of work would be appalling, therefore I find your story difficult to believe personally. This is coming from somebody who has spent over 20 years working on building sites
Who’d have thought he’d be sat here today drinking Château de Chasselas.
I always thought Unherd Reader/Elliot was from the US. Apparently he’s from Yorkshire 😉
Men are the same everywhere, perhaps.
Nonsense!
Where have you been since you fled this “sceptred isle” more that fifty ago may I ask?
Hi Charles. You always exactly remind me on one of old guys in the Muppet show who sit back in the box of the theater of their shows and make clever remarks and laugh….. It is a good kind to have in any group…haha
One can but try!
One can but try!
Hi Charles. You always exactly remind me on one of old guys in the Muppet show who sit back in the box of the theater of their shows and make clever remarks and laugh….. It is a good kind to have in any group…haha
They are clarie – but in the same archytypes. Hero, weakling, leader, drudge…,haha…not the same as a sex
As women are, but a different set of types.
x
always liked your posting
Nonsense!
Where have you been since you fled this “sceptred isle” more that fifty ago may I ask?
They are clarie – but in the same archytypes. Hero, weakling, leader, drudge…,haha…not the same as a sex
As women are, but a different set of types.
x
always liked your posting
Indeed, Sandford clearly lived in luxury! In my day it was 23 hour shifts, with an hours commute there and back!
haha
that was our grandfathers life….by the way If I got into stories of my Highland Grandfather… wow! At 14 he left home and made his way on foot, and riding the rails, to Vancouver Canada eventually – working as a Miner across the continent. once getting a job as a bouncer in a rough gambling saloon before 18 years old where they threw problem people out an upstairs window onto a stretched hide below – as a lesson for all to behave or get ejected the hard way – in one of those really hard frontier towns… I know Claire thinks this silliness – but true…. haha, life, it is not one size fits all…..
haha
that was our grandfathers life….by the way If I got into stories of my Highland Grandfather… wow! At 14 he left home and made his way on foot, and riding the rails, to Vancouver Canada eventually – working as a Miner across the continent. once getting a job as a bouncer in a rough gambling saloon before 18 years old where they threw problem people out an upstairs window onto a stretched hide below – as a lesson for all to behave or get ejected the hard way – in one of those really hard frontier towns… I know Claire thinks this silliness – but true…. haha, life, it is not one size fits all…..
Home Counties I think.
Monty Python reference Charles.
Four Yorkshiremen are sat around reminicsing over the good old days over a glass of Château de Chasselas sharing increasingly absurd stories about how hard they used to have it growing up.
Billy picked up on it.
Monty Python reference Charles.
Four Yorkshiremen are sat around reminicsing over the good old days over a glass of Château de Chasselas sharing increasingly absurd stories about how hard they used to have it growing up.
Billy picked up on it.
Men are the same everywhere, perhaps.
Indeed, Sandford clearly lived in luxury! In my day it was 23 hour shifts, with an hours commute there and back!
Home Counties I think.
I never go back and reread my old posts, only did – but Billy Bob – this is 100% fact’
I worked industrial electrical as a piecework installer. We worked 13hour shifts, mostly in the ceilings of factories of and industrial buildings at nights wile the place closed down – so to not stop their work. Mostly we lived out of hotels and on a job would work Every night till the job finished, weeks to months. Pity you never knew much construction is done like this – but not all work 9-5 or the world would end. (piecework also pays time and a half – so do not complain about that fact)
When on on the road (and that paid time and a half after 8 hours a shift – so 12 hours = 14 hours pay! and after 40 hours a week – so more $$$.
And if not pulling wire in retrofits I did structural carpentry for second work – and they always had work for me – again 12 hour days. So yes – I was crawling on my belly in spider filled foundations and miserable work – hard work.
Billy bob – you and I are so different in how we do the trades it is amazing – I have talked to you for years and you fail to realize USA is Not NZ. I think you wear a hard hat, high viz jacket, safety glasses, steel toes boots, hearing protection stuff wile fixing a leaking tap in some woman’s house. I was not like that. I was climbing pipework cutting and splicing hot 277v wiring…..
Your construction is 100% different to mine. Want to see my current project? I am at [email protected]
I remember the conversation well. You undercut reputable building companies by not paying for basic health and safety equipment such as scaffolding, and then boasted that a number of lads working for you got seriously injured during the course of the jobs. You seemed proud of the fact you were an absolute cowboy with no thought of the wellbeing of those you employed. You also regularly bemoaned the demise of Christian influence, yet helping others didn’t seem to feature in your thinking
I remember the conversation well. You undercut reputable building companies by not paying for basic health and safety equipment such as scaffolding, and then boasted that a number of lads working for you got seriously injured during the course of the jobs. You seemed proud of the fact you were an absolute cowboy with no thought of the wellbeing of those you employed. You also regularly bemoaned the demise of Christian influence, yet helping others didn’t seem to feature in your thinking
Who’d have thought he’d be sat here today drinking Château de Chasselas.
I always thought Unherd Reader/Elliot was from the US. Apparently he’s from Yorkshire 😉
I never go back and reread my old posts, only did – but Billy Bob – this is 100% fact’
I worked industrial electrical as a piecework installer. We worked 13hour shifts, mostly in the ceilings of factories of and industrial buildings at nights wile the place closed down – so to not stop their work. Mostly we lived out of hotels and on a job would work Every night till the job finished, weeks to months. Pity you never knew much construction is done like this – but not all work 9-5 or the world would end. (piecework also pays time and a half – so do not complain about that fact)
When on on the road (and that paid time and a half after 8 hours a shift – so 12 hours = 14 hours pay! and after 40 hours a week – so more $$$.
And if not pulling wire in retrofits I did structural carpentry for second work – and they always had work for me – again 12 hour days. So yes – I was crawling on my belly in spider filled foundations and miserable work – hard work.
Billy bob – you and I are so different in how we do the trades it is amazing – I have talked to you for years and you fail to realize USA is Not NZ. I think you wear a hard hat, high viz jacket, safety glasses, steel toes boots, hearing protection stuff wile fixing a leaking tap in some woman’s house. I was not like that. I was climbing pipework cutting and splicing hot 277v wiring…..
Your construction is 100% different to mine. Want to see my current project? I am at [email protected]
Good grief!! An autobiography, perhaps more than we needed, or wanted, to know. You’re comments are always so harsh, unherd reader, (get a name) I fear for your children.
Like you he ‘legged’ it to the States years ago and probably became brutalised by that terrible experience, as you have.
QED?
My problem is I dropped out of school in London as a bad sufferer of Authority Defiant Disorder – always polite, but like a bad mule, could not be led or driven, so made a total mess of school and had to get my high school as an adult later – but moving broke to another continent I really had no idea of life so just hit the road on foot for about 7 years – just living rough, city and wilds and the road – always the road…..Read Orwell’s ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’ to see life on the road with no viable means of support,,,haha, it does not leave one as you were when it begun..
And so I just live in a different reality to normal people… you say, brutalized – no, more eyes opened, and hardened – and also learned that what normal people think is true and think is reality – is neither…haha When I get into a maudlin mood and write of my past, it is all true stuff – but I leave out the problematic bits…
Life is too short to ‘travel’ 3rd class unless you really have to.
1st class was always the favoured British option.
Life is too short to ‘travel’ 3rd class unless you really have to.
1st class was always the favoured British option.
My problem is I dropped out of school in London as a bad sufferer of Authority Defiant Disorder – always polite, but like a bad mule, could not be led or driven, so made a total mess of school and had to get my high school as an adult later – but moving broke to another continent I really had no idea of life so just hit the road on foot for about 7 years – just living rough, city and wilds and the road – always the road…..Read Orwell’s ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’ to see life on the road with no viable means of support,,,haha, it does not leave one as you were when it begun..
And so I just live in a different reality to normal people… you say, brutalized – no, more eyes opened, and hardened – and also learned that what normal people think is true and think is reality – is neither…haha When I get into a maudlin mood and write of my past, it is all true stuff – but I leave out the problematic bits…
Claire – I use my life as a guidance to others – most like you take it as an example of what not to do – haha – I have been on the hard side quite a lot – I have lived homeless on the streets to living in mansions at the tail end of the Raj….
But whatever – the rich tapestry of live includes all things..
Best Wishes
x
Like you he ‘legged’ it to the States years ago and probably became brutalised by that terrible experience, as you have.
QED?
Claire – I use my life as a guidance to others – most like you take it as an example of what not to do – haha – I have been on the hard side quite a lot – I have lived homeless on the streets to living in mansions at the tail end of the Raj….
But whatever – the rich tapestry of live includes all things..
Best Wishes
x
Not many building sites are open for 12 hours on a Sunday, and there are rules around construction noise after certain hours and at weekends. Also somebody working those hours would be shattered and their quality of work would be appalling, therefore I find your story difficult to believe personally. This is coming from somebody who has spent over 20 years working on building sites
Good grief!! An autobiography, perhaps more than we needed, or wanted, to know. You’re comments are always so harsh, unherd reader, (get a name) I fear for your children.
I do not know the age of this writer – but I despair to think a generation of his ilk will be in charge later. What a bunch of whining, self pitying, looser.
I own half a dozen houses – mostly cheap ones, very cheap by UK standards, like the best equaling a one bed flat in London, but still nice.
I turned 40 living in a camp in the very remote Far North – I owned a 25 year old truck and a dog and about $1300. I had been living alone in the wilds about the last 3 months and realized – nothing is as miserable and disreputable as a broke old guy. When winter drove me out I had decided to make a bunch of money, and so I did – same as you could. But I know you modern people are too soft – so you will just self pity and whine like bit* hes.
So I went back to my wife who lived in a USA city and got 2 full time jobs in construction. 84 hours a week, plus commuting. (as a Mountain man I was hard as iron, as we are living like that in the prime years of our 40s.)
I worked 12 hours of Hard work, construction, 7 days a week, for 5.5 years. My longest spell without even one day off was about 9 months. If there was work and I was not injured I worked. Commuting took an hour or a couple a day too. I tried to get 8 hours in bed a night. I ate, worked, slept, commuted. 5.5 years, 12 – 13 hours a day. My wife paid all the bills and did laundry and all the rest. I invested the money well as I made it. I spent NOTHING, nor did she. I had plenty of money at the end to buy a nice 3 bed house for cash in London if I wished, a Nice one (I am from London) – after I had paid all my taxes, if I wanted to. But instead I went off in another direction, which turned out pretty weird – but eventually I used it to buy some great houses, again in USA.
5.5 years… it used me up in a lot of ways – after being ‘Bushed’ from solitary living in the bush for years, to aching body doing miserable, painful, construction till I was spent every day….I had a weird decade – went from poor bush man to quite well off –
But then I have never been a Pu**y.
Also – you useless young people – how the hel l do you think you can survive and make it in life if you are not married? It takes two committed people to make it in life – and I just add – I just lived apart from my wife during my bush years – and would come out in hard winter and stay with her – no way I could have been without a wife – it is not natural for a human to not be married.