LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1364191188098678786?s=21

Doh

Jezyboy

Always, sometimes.

60 percent of the time, you abuse people all of the time.

To be fair I think most poeple who have had a career change find it challenging not to crap all over their old career. The thing in Johnson's case is that he's continued playing journalist through much of his time as a politician.

rick_chasey

Well SC, there's been a massive US treasuries bond rout today so perhaps the market is getting more worried about the sustainability of the monster stimulus Biden has planned,

ddraver

Crazy Conservatives & one for @briantrumpet

https://youtu.be/LdgT0hX1swc

rick_chasey

I am quite worried the govt is making up issues at uni in order to give them cover to have unis adhere to state sanctioned history.

rick_chasey

In all seriousness this is a problem for the Tories as people who have aspirations to home ownership or are home owners are much more likely to vote tory

rick_chasey

https://sporadicmusings.substack.com/p/why-arent-we-richer?r=2py1k&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter

This is quite interesting. "Why isn't the UK richer?"

The UK isn’t as rich as it should be. If we became one of the United States, then we would be the 2nd poorest of all of them. Even within Europe, we’re nowhere near as rich as others. Germany is about 8% richer than we are, France is only slightly poorer despite having a much more regulated labour market. Clearly, something is going wrong here.

briantrumpet

ddraver said:

Crazy Conservatives & one for @briantrumpet

https://youtu.be/LdgT0hX1swc

That's quite put me off my breakfast

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

In all seriousness this is a problem for the Tories as people who have aspirations to home ownership or are home owners are much more likely to vote tory

It would be interesting to see how/whether the geographical disparity in house prices has changed significantly.

The totally mental house price problem does seem to be very much a southerner issue.

pblakeney

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

Sure but what is the soluuution.

pblakeney

A bubble burst.
The short term consequences will be horrendous though.
Or just carry on....heads in sand.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

https://sporadicmusings.substack.com/p/why-arent-we-richer?r=2py1k&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter

This is quite interesting. "Why isn't the UK richer?"

The UK isn’t as rich as it should be. If we became one of the United States, then we would be the 2nd poorest of all of them. Even within Europe, we’re nowhere near as rich as others. Germany is about 8% richer than we are, France is only slightly poorer despite having a much more regulated labour market. Clearly, something is going wrong here.

as usual no idea who this person is but I was surprised enough at the stats that I checked them and can only think he did not calculate our GDP per capita into $

even so we would only be 38th which is not great but as usual some of the problem is Brexit

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

Sure but what is the soluuution.

I tell you what is not the solution and that is for the Govt to offer 95% mortgages because the market deems them too risky. Whoever suggested that should have been offered a bottle of whisky and a revolver and done the decent thing.

Here is my solution and will come as no surprise as is my solution to 90% of the self-inflicted problems. Stop interfering in the market!!!

Stopping tax breaks for BTL was a good idea and should be continued
Housing Benefit is a massive transfer of wealth to the private ented sector
Stamp duty should be refomed so that it stops limitig market liquidity
Green belt was founded in 1955 there should be a recognition that life has changed and it should be reformed. ie allow development within 1km of a station.

john80

pblakeney said:

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.

£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.

£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.

john80

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

Sure but what is the soluuution.

I tell you what is not the solution and that is for the Govt to offer 95% mortgages because the market deems them too risky. Whoever suggested that should have been offered a bottle of whisky and a revolver and done the decent thing.

Here is my solution and will come as no surprise as is my solution to 90% of the self-inflicted problems. Stop interfering in the market!!!

Stopping tax breaks for BTL was a good idea and should be continued
Housing Benefit is a massive transfer of wealth to the private ented sector
Stamp duty should be refomed so that it stops limitig market liquidity
Green belt was founded in 1955 there should be a recognition that life has changed and it should be reformed. ie allow development within 1km of a station.

Green belt change with time and is recorded on development plans that are subject to public consultations on. The problem is that an individual can't generally get the plan changed to build on the outskirts of a existing conurbation however a developer can buy a whole field and then get a plan through for 50 homes. This is a disparity I would like sorted out as it is essentially full of kickbacks. Classic example round our way is developer gets plan approved on basis of building a new community center. Once approved plan changed to a lick of paint on a already dilapidated building. You might as well have let individuals build their individual homes.

john80

rick_chasey said:

In all seriousness this is a problem for the Tories as people who have aspirations to home ownership or are home owners are much more likely to vote tory

It is a problem for any party that wants to get elected as to do so they need a significant number of votes from home owners who exist at all ends of the wealth scale. The super rich and those with housing ownership for say over 3 decades will be in a position to take a large hair cut on property price collapse if they were not idiots. It is those with high loan to value rates that are screwed hence why I actually think it is a bigger problem for Labour as their voters tend to be younger or poorer as a sweeping generalisation. No voter is going to be happy with house price falls as it is essentially a investment vehicle that is widely held. Try saying to the public that you think house prices are too high and that you want to engineer then lower or static over the next decade and see how that pans out in a democracy.

Dorset_Boy

john80 - the roof over your head is not an investment, though you could argue it is for your children.

It would be interesting to see how the population has grown over the same period as Rick's graph, together with changes in the housing stock.
Likewise if you removed London (as defined by the M25) from the figures what the picture would then be.

I agree with SC that Government interference with the market just pushes up prices, partcularly at the bottom end with the likes of help to buy etc.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

Sure but what is the soluuution.

I tell you what is not the solution and that is for the Govt to offer 95% mortgages because the market deems them too risky. Whoever suggested that should have been offered a bottle of whisky and a revolver and done the decent thing.

Here is my solution and will come as no surprise as is my solution to 90% of the self-inflicted problems. Stop interfering in the market!!!

Stopping tax breaks for BTL was a good idea and should be continued
Housing Benefit is a massive transfer of wealth to the private ented sector
Stamp duty should be refomed so that it stops limitig market liquidity
Green belt was founded in 1955 there should be a recognition that life has changed and it should be reformed. ie allow development within 1km of a station.

Agree with a lot of that. How does it deal with the likes of the Nine Elms redevelopment, which is no longer much to do with actually housing people? Would also comment that until the planning system is fairly radically altered, we'll just be tinkering around the edges.

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

Sure but what is the soluuution.

I tell you what is not the solution and that is for the Govt to offer 95% mortgages because the market deems them too risky. Whoever suggested that should have been offered a bottle of whisky and a revolver and done the decent thing.

Here is my solution and will come as no surprise as is my solution to 90% of the self-inflicted problems. Stop interfering in the market!!!

Stopping tax breaks for BTL was a good idea and should be continued
Housing Benefit is a massive transfer of wealth to the private ented sector
Stamp duty should be refomed so that it stops limitig market liquidity
Green belt was founded in 1955 there should be a recognition that life has changed and it should be reformed. ie allow development within 1km of a station.

We are similarly aligned and simultaneously diverging.

The whole bottom of the market is supported by the state. The problem we have is that the top end is then run as though it is a true market economy with very little regulation.

This has created a negative spiral of cost and distortion.

If the government continues to support the bottom end through housing benefit and buying schemes, they have a duty to regulate the market.

So the problem is worst of both worlds.

If it isn’t regulated, there should be no government support at the bottom end. Personally I favour regulation.

Rent caps and punitive taxation on empty property would be my starting points.

Housing is limited and we perceive it as essential, if you want to keep property empty, you should pay through the nose to do so.

I don’t advocate rapid changes though as that will just cause chaos but a long term direction of travel that people can plan to.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

john80 - the roof over your head is not an investment, though you could argue it is for your children.

It would be interesting to see how the population has grown over the same period as Rick's graph, together with changes in the housing stock.
Likewise if you removed London (as defined by the M25) from the figures what the picture would then be.

I agree with SC that Government interference with the market just pushes up prices, partcularly at the bottom end with the likes of help to buy etc.

Well the value of the house I currently live in quadrupled over 20 year period and I'm a good hour away from the M25.

pblakeney

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?

I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.

£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.

£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.

You do realise that the majority on here will be falling about laughing at how low these figures are?
If only they were more representative.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

In all seriousness this is a problem for the Tories as people who have aspirations to home ownership or are home owners are much more likely to vote tory

I have to admit I'm surprised at the 90s average house price on that graphic. I bought my first house in 1994, a 2 bedroom new build semi in a relatively cheap part of the country, and paid around £45k for it.

briantrumpet

The trouble with the housing benefit scene is that the immediate benefit or penalty (introduction/increase or decrease/withdrawal) is gained/borne by the renters, but then gets transferred to the rental property owners. If you decrease or withdraw it, it's entirely understandable that renters will complain because of the immediate problems it would cause (and without rent controls, there's no way you could readjust without severe immediate difficulties to renters), but you can equally understand that rental property owners are going to kick up a fuss if £billions are taken out of the business income. So you get both sides of the market resisting any downwards adjustment, even if it might benefit renters in the longer term.

I can't see any easy solution. But pumping in £billions certainly isn't the best answer.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

john80 - the roof over your head is not an investment, though you could argue it is for your children.

It would be interesting to see how the population has grown over the same period as Rick's graph, together with changes in the housing stock.
Likewise if you removed London (as defined by the M25) from the figures what the picture would then be.

I agree with SC that Government interference with the market just pushes up prices, partcularly at the bottom end with the likes of help to buy etc.

Well the value of the house I currently live in quadrupled over 20 year period and I'm a good hour away from the M25.

There will always be hotspots, and Cambridge will have benefitted from the rise of it's tech companies, proximity to Stanstead, and presumably a good train service into the heart of the City.

However, that doesn't make the wider point the I have implied that London has massively distorted the national figures irrelevant, and it would be interesting to see the comparison to highlight the effect.

kingstongraham

Average UK house price in 2005 = £156,000
Average UK house price in 2009 (post "crash") = £156,000
Average UK house price in 2020 = £223,000

£156,000 in 2005 would be £238,000 in real terms in 2020. So on average, not
increased over 15 years.

1996 to 2005 were the years where it was crazy. If they moved with inflation, average would have gone from £53,000 to £66,000. We're still living with that not being corrected, for better and worse (dependent on whether you were fortunate to have bought then). FWIW, I remember being told how brave it was to buy in early 2000, because the prices were guaranteed to crash.

Dorset_Boy

kingstongraham said:

Average UK house price in 2005 = £156,000
Average UK house price in 2009 (post "crash") = £156,000
Average UK house price in 2020 = £223,000

£156,000 in 2005 would be £238,000 in real terms in 2020. So on average, not
increased over 15 years.

1996 to 2005 were the years where it was crazy. If they moved with inflation, average would have gone from £53,000 to £66,000. We're still living with that not being corrected, for better and worse (dependent on whether you were fortunate to have bought then). FWIW, I remember being told how brave it was to buy in early 2000, because the prices were guaranteed to crash.

Early 2000s the BoE and Fed kept interest rates artificially low, and policy encouraged people to convert short term debt into long term debt. The regulator was happy to see ever increasing lending multiples and mortgages of over 100% LTV. The interest rate manipulation prevented a crash then, and stored up a whole load of problems for a few years later!

Also people in the early 2000s will have still had comparatively fresh memories of early the 1990s property crash.

bompington

Stats quoted in all these posts are all true and relevant, but no-one seems to be mentioning the other factors - cheifly interest rates.
I well remember taking out my first mortgage in 1990 (some guys have all the luck) which was less than a 2X multiple of my salary, but cost me half of my take home pay just in interest.

briantrumpet

bompington said:

Stats quoted in all these posts are all true and relevant, but no-one seems to be mentioning the other factors - cheifly interest rates.
I well remember taking out my first mortgage in 1990 (some guys have all the luck) which was less than a 2X multiple of my salary, but cost me half of my take home pay just in interest.

My 1992 5-year fixed rate at 8% seemed like a bargain at the time...

pblakeney

bompington said:

Stats quoted in all these posts are all true and relevant, but no-one seems to be mentioning the other factors - cheifly interest rates.
I well remember taking out my first mortgage in 1990 (some guys have all the luck) which was less than a 2X multiple of my salary, but cost me half of my take home pay just in interest.

The house prices rising as interest rates drop. 🤔

Circular. As rates drop people can afford more, prices increase. You end up with the same house, it's just worth more if you get off the ladder at the right time.