BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

gaffer_slow wrote:

leaving the EU is probably the worse way to get house prices to go down.

Its a side effect not the aim, obviously :roll: . But every cloud has a silver lining as they say.

Keeping the amputation theme going, this is a bit like saying that immediate weight loss with no dieting is a benefit of having your leg chopped off.

More of a separation than an amputation. As I said, every cloud has a silver lining. I wsd just pointing out a positive to some of the house price whingers.

I suspect we'll end up supergluing the leg back on, and trying to claim it's a good result. Sceptics might wonder why we tried hacksawing it off in the first place...

I still for the life of me can't see how we win from Brexit. The best case scenario if we follow through with the madness is we get back to something along the lines of what we had, but with some unquantifiable 'sovereignty' increase, but having kicked ourselves in the bollox (and partially severed a limb) in the meantime.

It's like more and more people are realising it's sh1t (and will probably get worse), but just doing a shrug and saying we might as well get on with it now. I can't see the rationale for getting on with something that's harming us so obviously. I feel some almighty fudge coming up, that keeps the jubilant Leavers at bay, but that doesn't sink the ship (sorry, mixing my metaphors). But I really can't see, for one minute, either how this thing is going to play out, or how we get out of it without it being sh1tter than it was before.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

gaffer_slow wrote:

leaving the EU is probably the worse way to get house prices to go down.

Its a side effect not the aim, obviously :roll: . But every cloud has a silver lining as they say.

Keeping the amputation theme going, this is a bit like saying that immediate weight loss with no dieting is a benefit of having your leg chopped off.

More of a separation than an amputation. As I said, every cloud has a silver lining. I wsd just pointing out a positive to some of the house price whingers.

I suspect we'll end up supergluing the leg back on, and trying to claim it's a good result. Sceptics might wonder why we tried hacksawing it off in the first place...

I still for the life of me can't see how we win from Brexit. The best case scenario if we follow through with the madness is we get back to something along the lines of what we had, but with some unquantifiable 'sovereignty' increase, but having kicked ourselves in the bollox (and partially severed a limb) in the meantime.

It's like more and more people are realising it's sh1t (and will probably get worse), but just doing a shrug and saying we might as well get on with it now. I can't see the rationale for getting on with something that's harming us so obviously. I feel sorry me almighty fudge coming up, that keeps the jubilant Leavers at bay, but that doesn't sink the ship (sorry, mixing my metaphors). But I really can't see, for one minute, either how this thing is going to play out, or how we get out of it without it being sh1tter than it was before.

Even if we had a referendum tomorrow and reversed the decision things would stil be sh1tter than they were, just less sh1t than they would have been.

Stevo_666

@ briantrumpet. Assuming that the EU survives in its current form. The UK leaving is a body blow as Merkel acknowledged on the day of the result. The likely Italian banking crisis will be a major test and the single currency I believe cannot survive unless they go for much deeper political integration, which will fuel more voter resistance and populism in Europe.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

@ briantrumpet. Assuming that the EU survives in its current form. The UK leaving is a body blow as Merkel acknowledged on the day of the result. The likely Italian banking crisis will be a major test and the single currency I believe cannot survive unless they go for much deeper political integration, which will fuel more voter resistance and populism in Europe.

But (to rehash tired arguments), we were already at arms length, could invoke Article 50 at the drop of a hat if the EU ship were sinking, and this premature extraculation helps no-one as things stand now.

I ought to stop writing about this, as I relapse into my hopeless "What the f**k have we done?" head that I got when I woke up the morning after. What makes it worse now is that we can see what's happening, and we're shrugging and saying "let's chop our leg off anyway". I can't see my rage abating anytime soon.

RideOnTime

I honestly think we've got nothing to worry about - as above this UKIP follower has keen eye on the future.

Not sure what Cameron mean't when talking about closet racists = as per my coffee time friendly chat today with some warm 70 years olds from Belpher. erm so yes 'surprising there's a population from the Gambia in Nechells' yes paraphrase what the f@ck are they doing there it's unbelievable and Somalias are everywhere. Didn't see any in Uttoxeter.

briantrumpet

I suppose the only good I can see coming from this is if the Former UK (FUK) drags this out for so long, and the looser-but-wider movement within the EU starts to prevail, that we end up with an EU more in the mould that Tusk and others would like to see. But that would take a sea-change in the EU which I suspect would be an anathema to many in it.

So I still can't see how this is going to play out.

gaffer_slow

I particularly enjoy the Leave Politicians when they talk about "The EU's failing project" ...
... they realize that the UK had a fairly major hand in it.

It's like a politicians double whammy, they get to blame immigrants AND Brussels for all our problems.
.... and then they start talking about how "The Establishment" is against them. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

gaffer_slow wrote:

leaving the EU is probably the worse way to get house prices to go down.

Its a side effect not the aim, obviously :roll: . But every cloud has a silver lining as they say.

Keeping the amputation theme going, this is a bit like saying that immediate weight loss with no dieting is a benefit of having your leg chopped off.

More of a separation than an amputation. As I said, every cloud has a silver lining. I wsd just pointing out a positive to some of the house price whingers.

I m all for lowering house prices BUT falling house prices effect consumer confidence, which will mean less high street spending, less houses on the market less mobility and they ll be those caught in negative equity too.

it ll be a silver lining for those who are able to snap up a bargain.... say a buy to let landlord?

the cost of property needs to be managed, by building more housing not by some by-product of a needless down turn.

bobmcstuff

I think most people who want lower house prices would prefer that rather than being achieved by some catastrophic downturn it was achieved by a longer period of below-inflation house price growth (brought about by increased supply rather than reduced demand as that implies something bad has happened).

The problem has been (for most people) that house prices have been increasing way faster than inflation or wage growth, which is clearly not sustainable.

ugo.santalucia

bobmcstuff wrote:

The problem has been (for most people) that house prices have been increasing way faster than inflation or wage growth, which is clearly not sustainable.

A more holistic view of things... spending half of your life worrying, laden by debt, having to work long hours 5-6 days a week in a shit job so that you can get 1-2 days off to seek oblivion, compromising your health and any chance of enjoying the last 1/4 of your life when you might not be laden by debt is not sustainable, yet most people go that route, in the hope that material possessions will give them the joy advertised in glossy magazines.
If we were a tad smarter, we would probably work less, earn the same as less desperation would lead to higher wages, not get heavily into debt, buy a plot of land for 20-30K and build a house on it with logs, stones, mud or whatever you can get your hands on for cheap. That is a more sustainable way of living your life, incidentally also environmentally

mrfpb

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

The problem has been (for most people) that house prices have been increasing way faster than inflation or wage growth, which is clearly not sustainable.

A more holistic view of things... spending half of your life worrying, laden by debt, having to work long hours 5-6 days a week in a shoot job so that you can get 1-2 days off to seek oblivion, compromising your health and any chance of enjoying the last 1/4 of your life when you might not be laden by debt is not sustainable, yet most people go that route, in the hope that material possessions will give them the joy advertised in glossy magazines.
If we were a tad smarter, we would probably work less, earn the same as less desperation would lead to higher wages, not get heavily into debt, buy a plot of land for 20-30K and build a house on it with logs, stones, mud or whatever you can get your hands on for cheap. That is a more sustainable way of living your life, incidentally also environmentally

That model still works in Ireland, where my parents and two of my siblings built their own homes (my parents did in prep for retiring, my siblings did it when they moved over during the mini-boom Ireland had around 10 - 15 years ago). You still need a mortgage, though much smalller, to buy the land and get the house built. But over the last ten years they have had to tighten up the planning laws as their had been few restrictions on size or design of house, or how much land was required per house. It's still relatively easy to get land and build a house to your own specifications, so long as you don't mind living a few miles from the nearest town or shop.

ugo.santalucia

mrfpb wrote:

You still need a mortgage, though much smalller, to buy the land and get the house built.

I am not against a mortgage per se, it's when you are laden with a debt that you can only repay in 25 years and the repaiments make your life miserable and rely on you being able to keep a steady income for the all duration... very stressful

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

gaffer_slow wrote:

leaving the EU is probably the worse way to get house prices to go down.

Its a side effect not the aim, obviously :roll: . But every cloud has a silver lining as they say.

Keeping the amputation theme going, this is a bit like saying that immediate weight loss with no dieting is a benefit of having your leg chopped off.

More of a separation than an amputation. As I said, every cloud has a silver lining. I wsd just pointing out a positive to some of the house price whingers.

I m all for lowering house prices BUT falling house prices effect consumer confidence, which will mean less high street spending, less houses on the market less mobility and they ll be those caught in negative equity too.

it ll be a silver lining for those who are able to snap up a bargain.... say a buy to let landlord?

the cost of property needs to be managed, by building more housing not by some by-product of a needless down turn.

I know - that's why (at the risk of repeating myself again) I said every cloud has a silver lining.

House price drops, it might also benefit someone like me if I were looking to trade upto a larger property, as well as first time buyers. But don't let me distract from your other bete noir, those evil BTL landlords, second only to Cameron on your 'banging on' list

As for just build more - easier said than done, especially given where they need to be built - this conversation has been had before as I recall.

Pross

Are house prices really as high as people make out other than in a few bubbles (mainly the South east and desireable second home locations)? A lad who works for me is in his early 20s and just bought a 2 bed house for about £30k, barely more than 12 months salary. OK it was up in the Valleys but he only has a 45 minute drive to work in central Cardiff. The house is in decent condition and the mortgage costs less than his council tax. Even in my own little suburban area just off the M4 and a decent place to live, a 3 bed semi costs around £150 - £170k and there's plenty cheaper.

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

Are house prices really as high as people make out other than in a few bubbles (mainly the South east and desireable second home locations)? A lad who works for me is in his early 20s and just bought a 2 bed house for about £30k, barely more than 12 months salary. OK it was up in the Valleys but he only has a 45 minute drive to work in central Cardiff. The house is in decent condition and the mortgage costs less than his council tax. Even in my own little suburban area just off the M4 and a decent place to live, a 3 bed semi costs around £150 - £170k and there's plenty cheaper.

You should be more gentle when shattering people's belief systems

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Are house prices really as high as people make out other than in a few bubbles (mainly the South east and desireable second home locations)? A lad who works for me is in his early 20s and just bought a 2 bed house for about £30k, barely more than 12 months salary. OK it was up in the Valleys but he only has a 45 minute drive to work in central Cardiff. The house is in decent condition and the mortgage costs less than his council tax. Even in my own little suburban area just off the M4 and a decent place to live, a 3 bed semi costs around £150 - £170k and there's plenty cheaper.

Jesus Christ.

Guy who I sit next to just bought a one bed in zone 2 for £600k and it's not even that nice.

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Are house prices really as high as people make out other than in a few bubbles (mainly the South east and desireable second home locations)? A lad who works for me is in his early 20s and just bought a 2 bed house for about £30k, barely more than 12 months salary. OK it was up in the Valleys but he only has a 45 minute drive to work in central Cardiff. The house is in decent condition and the mortgage costs less than his council tax. Even in my own little suburban area just off the M4 and a decent place to live, a 3 bed semi costs around £150 - £170k and there's plenty cheaper.

You should be more gentle when shattering people's belief systems

House prices on average, in the s/w are 9 x regional avg earnings, a terraced house in Plymouth, one of the regions cheaper areas would be around 170k mark, so around 7x.

a house price fall to levels where the mythical avg earner (first time buyer) could reasonably be able to afford, would have severe knock on effects, just like there has been in ever other housing crash.

It needs to be managed and that means more building, which is at very low historical levels.

finchy

Pross wrote:

Are house prices really as high as people make out other than in a few bubbles (mainly the South east and desireable second home locations)? A lad who works for me is in his early 20s and just bought a 2 bed house for about £30k, barely more than 12 months salary. OK it was up in the Valleys but he only has a 45 minute drive to work in central Cardiff. The house is in decent condition and the mortgage costs less than his council tax. Even in my own little suburban area just off the M4 and a decent place to live, a 3 bed semi costs around £150 - £170k and there's plenty cheaper.

1) Lots of people live in the SE (the population of London is about the same as Wales and Scotland combined), so the fact that there are some cheap houses in the Welsh valleys isn't going to make much difference to most people.
2) House prices shot up to prices which were, historically, anomalously high in the early 2000s and stayed there.
3) Even with the weak pound, £150k - £170k could buy you something absolutely massive on the continent, in N. America, etc.

So yes, house prices are high.

cycleclinic

The problem is house builders cant build homes in thequnatities needed due to tight planning laws and they have little incentive either as making money means not building too many homes in the first place and buildjng middle class desirable homes. Social housing has a lower margin. Add to that the right to buy removes the incentive for cojncils and houskng associations to build homes and you have a high price problem. This then means people cant love where they need to to work. People in linconshire may want to move for work but they cant because house price disparity is too high. Council house waiting lists are too long so productivity is reduced.

Local council dont make the planning laws so planning objections to new development occur by those with homes/equity and by those that dont want to move, i.e older folk. So given the council cant chnage planning law few vote for them and that makes it more difficult to get homes built.

So maybe the solution is to delove the making of planning law to councils. That way we have a voice at the local level to get change. That might allow more house building and start to bring house prices under control in the places they need to be. You cannot stop the south east and london being places people want to live and work but there is plenty of land that could be used for house huilding there too. Also with planning law liberation it may spur other regions where house prices are low to make the necessary infrastructure devlopments to get people to want to live and work there.

All this means people living and working where they need to be and that brings productivity gains and a bigger economy.
Itis not just building moreit is about letting communties get the development they want. Some areas will choose not to liberalise but hose areas could stagnate. Other areas will choose a different path and if they it right maybe new areas of ecominic growth will emerge.

surrey_commuter

Wow this thread has turned weird.

How about we try and end our country's obsession with home ownership? Build up a proper private rented sector with long term lets - like the rest of the developed world. We could also stop incentivising people to invest in bricks and mortar and so distorting our economy. WTF do councils sell off property for less than market rate to boost home ownership? Why is a council house for life? You end up with little old ladies living in 4 bedroom houses. Or Bob Crow on a six figure salary still living in a council flat.

Moving the private sector out of London is an impossibility but Parliament could be moved when it is shut for refurbishment.

I saw a great idea to allow building in the green belt but only within 1km of a station. Apparently this would provide enough land for 1 million homes.

Cycle clinic - if you are going to devolve planning you need to devolve property revenues or they will just be left with the bills. Why not make stamp duty a local tax?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jesus Christ.

Guy who I sit next to just bought a one bed in zone 2 for £600k and it's not even that nice.

Never mind. Just think of all the shows, concerts and restaurants he can go to.
If only he could afford it.

ugo.santalucia

Surrey Commuter wrote:

How about we try and end our country's obsession with home ownership? Build up a proper private rented sector with long term lets - like the rest of the developed world.

There is good and bad about that. My parents rent out a flat in Italy: contracts are 4 year long with very little flexibility on either side. It works if you rent to a nice old couple who plan to die in it, but you can end up with tenants that destroy the place, don't pay the rent and it's very difficult to get them evicted. I would never buy a flat to rent in such system. After the last tenancy they haven't found new tenants as unless you find great ones, it's simply not worth the hassle, best to leave it empty.
While the UK system is not great for the bottom end of the market, it is great if you require flexibility and flexibility is the reason I am still renting... buying and selling isa a tedious process, unsuitable if you move area every 1-3 years

surrey_commuter

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

How about we try and end our country's obsession with home ownership? Build up a proper private rented sector with long term lets - like the rest of the developed world.

There is good and bad about that. My parents rent out a flat in Italy: contracts are 4 year long with very little flexibility on either side. It works if you rent to a nice old couple who plan to die in it, but you can end up with tenants that destroy the place, don't pay the rent and it's very difficult to get them evicted. I would never buy a flat to rent in such system. After the last tenancy they haven't found new tenants as unless you find great ones, it's simply not worth the hassle, best to leave it empty.
While the UK system is not great for the bottom end of the market, it is great if you require flexibility and flexibility is the reason I am still renting... buying and selling isa a tedious process, unsuitable if you move area every 1-3 years

I agree that setting up a system that works for both parties would not be easy. I was thinking more of the pension funds getting involved than more private landlords.

the work flexibility argument is a bit chicken and egg. Buying ties people down and results in inefficiencies in the labour market.

ugo.santalucia

Surrey Commuter wrote:

the work flexibility argument is a bit chicken and egg. Buying ties people down and results in inefficiencies in the labour market.

People in Britain buy too early... buying in your 20s and early 30s means restricting your options or living a life of ethernal commutes, often both. You will have a nice house when you are 50 if you play the ladder game, but at which price? A shit life that will most likely impact your health.

I know folks who have settled early in Hampshire and face a 4 hours + commute daily into the capital. I met somebody who lived on the Isle of Wight and commuted into London 4 days a week... 7 hours commute a day! Never have the chance of a decent meal, no time to exercise... the kind of lifestyle that gets them on a path to diabetes, heart disease and possibly cancer... all for what? The pleasure of ownership! people are incredibly stupid

haydenm

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

the work flexibility argument is a bit chicken and egg. Buying ties people down and results in inefficiencies in the labour market.

People in Britain buy too early... buying in your 20s and early 30s means restricting your options or living a life of ethernal commutes, often both. You will have a nice house when you are 50 if you play the ladder game, but at which price? A shoot life that will most likely impact your health.

I know folks who have settled early in Hampshire and face a 4 hours + commute daily into the capital. I met somebody who lived on the Isle of Wight and commuted into London 4 days a week... 7 hours commute a day! Never have the chance of a decent meal, no time to exercise... the kind of lifestyle that gets them on a path to diabetes, heart disease and possibly cancer... all for what? The pleasure of ownership! people are incredibly stupid

To me that sounds just as retarded as paying to rent anywhere near London. It's swings and roundabouts really, you're completely skint both ways but at least if you own a house there is some home you might make some cash at some point. Luckily I have no experience of trying to live/work anywhere near London...

Ps. I'm a 'person in Britain', I could buy today (aged 24) and have a 10 minute commute

ugo.santalucia

HaydenM wrote:

To me that sounds just as retarded as paying to rent anywhere near London. It's swings and roundabouts really, you're completely skint both ways but at least if you own a house there is some home you might make some cash at some point. Luckily I have no experience of trying to live/work anywhere near London...

I don't think you get my point. There is more to life than money... yes, you can work in the city and earn good money, but not good enough to live in Canary Wharf... so you live in Kent instead, which on a good day means 180 minutes commute a day, on a bad day it could be 3 hours. That kind of lifestyle means you have no time for anything else in life 5 days a week, if you have kids then you have no time for anything else 7 days a week. The rat race is not a sustainable way of living and yes, some will get away and enjoy their golden retirement, many will not and will get sick early.

Or, you could rent a flat in London, which means cutting the total commute to 60-90 minutes a day and having the opportunity to live a less stressful life... you will be cash poorer but health richer... and yes, the longest living folks live in central London, despite the air quality

haydenm

ugo.santalucia wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

To me that sounds just as retarded as paying to rent anywhere near London. It's swings and roundabouts really, you're completely skint both ways but at least if you own a house there is some home you might make some cash at some point. Luckily I have no experience of trying to live/work anywhere near London...

I don't think you get my point. There is more to life than money... yes, you can work in the city and earn good money, but not good enough to live in Canary Wharf... so you live in Kent instead, which on a good day means 180 minutes commute a day, on a bad day it could be 3 hours. That kind of lifestyle means you have no time for anything else in life 5 days a week, if you have kids then you have no time for anything else 7 days a week. The rat race is not a sustainable way of living and yes, some will get away and enjoy their golden retirement, many will not and will get sick early.

Or, you could rent a flat in London, which means cutting the total commute to 60-90 minutes a day and having the opportunity to live a less stressful life... you will be cash poorer but health richer... and yes, the longest living folks live in central London, despite the air quality

But then you have to live in London, you'll still be too poor to do anything and it'll take you you're entire annual leave to get anywhere worth going outside of London. I'm mainly just playing devils advocate, I'd have to be paid ridiculous amounts of money to attempt either option

ugo.santalucia

HaydenM wrote:

But then you have to live in London, you'll still be too poor to do anything and it'll take you you're entire annual leave to get anywhere worth going outside of London. I'm mainly just playing devils advocate, I'd have to be paid ridiculous amounts of money to attempt either option

People go to London for the opportunity... in many paths of life if you don;t spend some time in London your career is somewhat cut short.
You can rent a flat in London for 1000-1200 quid a month, which is not very much for many... or you can get a mortgage for a 300K property 3 hours away... the commuter belt now extends well to the very end of the home counties and beyond.

Of course the latter is a financially sound decision and the former appear to be stupid, if your metrics is solely money, but if you can't maintain a quality of life because you spend 6 hours on the road/train every day... if 3 years down the line you have put on 3 stones and you are facing an NHS assisted future, was it worth it?

haydenm

ugo.santalucia wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

But then you have to live in London, you'll still be too poor to do anything and it'll take you you're entire annual leave to get anywhere worth going outside of London. I'm mainly just playing devils advocate, I'd have to be paid ridiculous amounts of money to attempt either option

People go to London for the opportunity... in many paths of life if you don;t spend some time in London your career is somewhat cut short.
You can rent a flat in London for 1000-1200 quid a month, which is not very much for many... or you can get a mortgage for a 300K property 3 hours away... the commuter belt now extends well to the very end of the home counties and beyond.

Of course the latter is a financially sound decision and the former appear to be stupid, if your metrics is solely money, but if you can't maintain a quality of life because you spend 6 hours on the road/train every day... if 3 years down the line you have put on 3 stones and you are facing an NHS assisted future, was it worth it?

Fair enough, I could stomach spending £1200 a month with a view of it being a temporary career step for a few years, I doubt I would buy a house in those circumstances. I don't even want to buy a house up here that much but people keep telling me it's a good idea...

ugo.santalucia

HaydenM wrote:

Fair enough, I could stomach spending £1200 a month with a view of it being a temporary career step for a few years, I doubt I would buy a house in those circumstances. I don't even want to buy a house up here that much but people keep telling me it's a good idea...

Peer pressure. If you think you are going to live there for at least 5-6 years, then it's worth considering, otherwise more hassle than it's worth. The process of buying + selling might take well over one year in itself and it costs a lot of money in solicitors, estate agents, stamp duty and so on. The money you invest over a rent is the non interest part of the mortgage, which is less than 50% of what you pay monthly at the beginning of a 25 years mortgage... the interest is money down the drain just like a rent... then of course there are costs in ownership that you don't have as a tenant... boiler woes, insurance, maintenance and such... basically it's worth it if you live in a property booming area, then you make money by simply keeping the damn thing for a few years, otherwise all of the above makes it not much of an investment and I know people who have lost out badly, although they will never admit it.