Long Term Housing Shortage

[HAMISH_MCTAVISH]

Britain could have the biggest population in Europe by 2050 and be the third biggest recipient of migrants in the world, UN projections suggest.

They predict net immigration will average 174,000 a year up to 2050, swelling the population to 72 million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7938173.stm

I knew the population was supposed to be increasing over the next few decades, I had no idea it was by that much.

Thats a net increase of a million people every 5-6 years from now until then.

Given that we only have, theoretically, a million empty homes, (which is not really that accurate as many are second homes, derelict, homes for sale, etc), how many houses need to be built if we add a million people every 5-6 years?

If we do not add enough houses, HPI is inevitable, so what are the realistic chances of adding enough houses to accomodate 2 million more people a decade, and how many houses would it take?

[Number79]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7938173.stm

I knew the population was supposed to be increasing over the next few decades, I had no idea it was by that much.

Thats a net increase of a million people every 5-6 years from now until then.

Given that we only have, theoretically, a million empty homes, (which is not really that accurate as many are second homes, derelict, homes for sale, etc), how many houses need to be built if we add a million people every 5-6 years?

If we do not add enough houses, HPI is inevitable, so what are the realistic chances of adding enough houses to accomodate 2 million more people a decade, and how many houses would it take?

either we make sure that they are all indian or polish so that they can live 20 to a house otherwise we close our borders and there will be far less pressure.

[gravity always wins]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7938173.stm

I knew the population was supposed to be increasing over the next few decades, I had no idea it was by that much.

Thats a net increase of a million people every 5-6 years from now until then.

Given that we only have, theoretically, a million empty homes, (which is not really that accurate as many are second homes, derelict, homes for sale, etc), how many houses need to be built if we add a million people every 5-6 years?

If we do not add enough houses, HPI is inevitable, so what are the realistic chances of adding enough houses to accomodate 2 million more people a decade, and how many houses would it take?

Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

[mikthe20]

Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Exactly - the naivety of these population forecasts is ridiculous.

[NotMyHouse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7938173.stm

I knew the population was supposed to be increasing over the next few decades, I had no idea it was by that much.

Thats a net increase of a million people every 5-6 years from now until then.

Given that we only have, theoretically, a million empty homes, (which is not really that accurate as many are second homes, derelict, homes for sale, etc), how many houses need to be built if we add a million people every 5-6 years?

If we do not add enough houses, HPI is inevitable, so what are the realistic chances of adding enough houses to accomodate 2 million more people a decade, and how many houses would it take?

Yes. Immigrants on the minimum wage are really going to push up the price of houses. Prices can only rise if people have the ability to pay.

And how many immigrants will we get if the UK is in a recession and there are no jobs for these people?

This is the same BBC that in 2007 quoted some professor who thought house prices were going to go to 30x salary.

[time 2 raise interest rates]

Well if this is the case, you can guarantee the BNP will be running the country sooner than later, this

is what Labour don't get, if they don't stop this now things will get messy.

[uptherebels]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7938173.stm

If we do not add enough houses, HPI is inevitable, so what are the realistic chances of adding enough houses to accomodate 2 million more people a decade, and how many houses would it take?

Ok. Just build them. Build lots and lots of them, employing builders and all the other trades needed, therefore helping to reduce unemployment. Sell them, employing lots of EAs and solicitors and bankers, therefore helping to reduce unemployment. The new owners will need to furnish them, and will buy lots of carpets, furniture, etc, therefore helping to reduce unemployment. Sorted. Next question?

[spivT]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7938173.stm

I knew the population was supposed to be increasing over the next few decades, I had no idea it was by that much.

Thats a net increase of a million people every 5-6 years from now until then.

Given that we only have, theoretically, a million empty homes, (which is not really that accurate as many are second homes, derelict, homes for sale, etc), how many houses need to be built if we add a million people every 5-6 years?

If we do not add enough houses, HPI is inevitable, so what are the realistic chances of adding enough houses to accomodate 2 million more people a decade, and how many houses would it take?

trolling once again, when you posted this link initially it was a post about predicted population expansion by 2050....it was clear you were fishing and alluding to that pointing to a housing supply crisis, but as usual you trying to be coy meant no-one could be arsed to rise to the bait.

Now you come out and actually say what you were thinking. being coy not working for your trolling attempts ?

Why don't you stick to banging the drum about QE, dual income housholds blah blah. Instead of rearing the supply/demand fallacy.

clown.

[blankster]

I have a book published in the early 1970's where it was forecast that Britain's population would have doubled by the year 2000, to something like 110 million. Obviously the forecast was wrong, but the 'population explosion' was a big issue then, one that was taken as an indisputable fact, a bit like global warming warming is today.

Edited March 12, 2009 by blankster

[Namaste]

trolling once again, when you posted this link initially it was a post about predicted population expansion by 2050....it was clear you were fishing and alluding to that pointing to a housing supply crisis, but as usual you trying to be coy meant no-one could be arsed to rise to the bait.

Now you come out and actually say what you were thinking. being coy not working for your trolling attempts ?

Why don't you stick to banging the drum about QE, dual income housholds blah blah. Instead of rearing the supply/demand fallacy.

clown.

Yeah I noticed he changed the title to something a bit more 'dramatic'.

Hamish, do you honestly think anyone knows what is going to happen 40 years from now? Its like saying "in forty years time, I could be a billionaire"*. Yep, can't wait.

* please no comments about impending hyperinflation and everyone being a billionaire, blah, blah

[HAMISH_MCTAVISH]

*snip*

Of course it's relevant to housing, but as I didn't specifically mention that in the first post it got moved to off topic.

And if you believe that the population will not grow in the next few decades you're incredibly naive.

What sort of strange Spivvy world do you live in, where a million houses (most of which aren't actually available anyway) will fit 12 million people......

Muppet.

[A.steve]

I knew the population was supposed to be increasing over the next few decades, I had no idea it was by that much.

The population of Britain isn't "supposed" to be doing anything of the sort.

Our population could increase to 72 million by 2050, or it could reduce to 12 million. The one thing that history has proven time and time again is that predictions decades into the future tend to be hilariously inaccurate.

Try again, unfounded fear of mass migration will not convince me of rampant house price inflation just-around-the-corner.

[HAMISH_MCTAVISH]

please no comments about impending hyperinflation and everyone being a billionaire, blah, blah

[0q0]

This country has to call a halt to this open borders nonsense, there simply isn't the room here, we are already densely over-populated in many regions.

People from all countries here are welcome, on a waiting list and points system, but not just to turn up in their masses any more. It's putting a strain on everything from doctors' surgeries to housing charities.

Although many immigrants worked hard and made a real success of their life here to go on to afford expensive homes, the vast majority coming in don't. Most end up in local authority or 2+ to a room private housing.

EDIT to add: although they can let sophisticated French women and nice Nordic blondes in, yes please Mr Woolas !

Edited March 12, 2009 by The Last Bear

[Sinking Feeling]

As we know from newspaper articles in March 2007 that said that the average house price would be 300,000 by 2010, extrapolation is often an incorrect science. Numbers always tend to rise and fall - apart from Labour government spending which is the official exception to the rule!

[Te Mata]

As we know from newspaper articles in March 2007 that said that the average house price would be 300,000 by 2010, extrapolation is often an incorrect science. Numbers always tend to rise and fall - apart from Labour government spending which is the official exception to the rule!

Extrapolation is just plain dumb.

It is almost a signal to believe the opposite, similar to contrarian theory in the share market. Economists, estate agents, futurists , , commodity funds, companies, climate scientists etc, all make the exact same mistake in extrapolation of exponential trends.

There is no better illustration than the example of house prices mentioned above.

[Icantbelieveitsnotbutter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7938173.stm

I knew the population was supposed to be increasing over the next few decades, I had no idea it was by that much.

Thats a net increase of a million people every 5-6 years from now until then.

Given that we only have, theoretically, a million empty homes, (which is not really that accurate as many are second homes, derelict, homes for sale, etc), how many houses need to be built if we add a million people every 5-6 years?

If we do not add enough houses, HPI is inevitable, so what are the realistic chances of adding enough houses to accomodate 2 million more people a decade, and how many houses would it take?

They were saying the same in Ireland, and now they are all leaving.

We have gone through 12 years of open borders with no control, and an unreformed welfare system that encourages sloth and laziness, and a starting point 12 years ago when taxes were reasonable (particularly for the millions who can readily avoid the system...). It is clear the welfare and benefit system alone is a major attraction.

If you think all of these conditions will persist for 41 more years it is possible. Our standard of living will plummet in the meantime....

[KingBingo]

In answer to the OP you sack 99% of all planning officers and allow the market to cater for demand as it see's fit.

The remaining 1% would just do a quick check to make sure the proposed plans where roughly in keeping with the areas, should take 10 minutes per case, not the 6 months + it takes now.

[spivT]

blah blah, backtrack backtrack, must explain my weak trolling attempts, clutching at straws, each one of my posts is 'greenshoots' related.

In summary, this is me scraping the proverbial barrel. Sorry for being a troll.

[bobthe~]

And if you believe that the population will not grow in the next few decades you're incredibly naive.

Muppet.

If you believe government reports, then I think that you might be guilty of the same naivety Hamish.

Governments spin for their own agenda.

Let's not forget the knife crime stats that were released a while back were pushed through by Gordon Brown's office to make himself look good even though the chief statistician, that the govt hired to make their figures more accurate and less open to accusations of spin, said that under no circumstances should they be released.

Let's add obesity to that picture. The US reported 400,000 deaths related to obesity. Until it was pointed out that they ought not to include car crashes. They dropped it down to around 100k after that. Turns out the more recent figure is now 26,000. On the back of those reports the UK govt had previously announced that 32k early deaths were related to obesity every year. Now that figure is 9k. But if you look at the 26k in the US which is a more obese country, the figure should be around 5633.

I reckon the govt were looking desperately for a reason not to call the HP bubble a bubble but to say it was sound fundamentals. This was just what they needed.

[HAMISH_MCTAVISH]

If you believe government reports, then I think that you might be guilty of the same naivety Hamish.

Governments spin for their own agenda.

Let's not forget the knife crime stats that were released a while back were pushed through by Gordon Brown's office to make himself look good even though the chief statistician, that the govt hired to make their figures more accurate and less open to accusations of spin, said that under no circumstances should they be released.

Let's add obesity to that picture. The US reported 400,000 deaths related to obesity. Until it was pointed out that they ought not to include car crashes. They dropped it down to around 100k after that. Turns out the more recent figure is now 26,000. On the back of those reports the UK govt had previously announced that 32k early deaths were related to obesity every year. Now that figure is 9k. But if you look at the 26k in the US which is a more obese country, the figure should be around 5633.

I reckon the govt were looking desperately for a reason not to call the HP bubble a bubble but to say it was sound fundamentals. This was just what they needed.

WHich all makes perfect sense, until you actually read the article and see it's not the UK government making the report.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of what was otherwise a feckin great anti-government rant!!!!

(didnt know it was possible to mention the govt that many times in a paragraph)

Edited March 12, 2009 by HAMISH_MCTAVISH

[bobthe~]

WHich all makes perfect sense, until you actually read the article and see it's not the UK government making the report.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of what was otherwise a feckin great anti-government rant!!!!

(didnt know it was possible to mention the govt that many times in a paragraph)

I don't let anything like actually reading the article stand in my way.

I have a distaste for most statistics, which might have shone through. And i would class the UN in the same breath as the gubmint, but that could easily be read as me trying to wriggle out of it. Don't get me started on the misuse of stats to promote the climate change agenda.

[Si1]

this is just bad exztrapolation not taking into account the fact that they're all going home back to Poland etc. they'll follow the money, an dif you think the mney is in the UK and America over next 30 odd years then maybe this is correct, but it all depends.

funny the beeb are running it as a story tho...

[ccc]

Has any population prediction, in the World, ever, in history, ever been correct ?

Yes there could be a problem if that many people came to this country.

Although, I can't quite see why that many people would want to come to the UK in the near future....

[Willy Weasel]

The price of housing has been governed by the supply of money not the supply of houses. The price of housing will continue to fall until the price reflects the supply of money available. The supply of housing would only be relevant if there was enough money to buy houses at current prices - there isn't