Tired of Waiting

Thank you LL. So, in all of London, all HB recipients: 840k, but 560k are in "Social Rent", which means Council and Housing Associations, and only 280k are in private rents. And in inner London the numbers are 428k in total, 321k social, and only 105k in private rents. Mainly these - private and in inner London - will be affected by the cap, I think. ToW

Very well put w1. That proves that it's an unsustainable bubble.

Brilliant. Great job SHERWICK.

But that includes all public spending, including the useful ones, like infrastructure, health, education, etc.

I think so. At over £200bn I think it must include pensions.

Interesting similarity. I think you are right, they are somehow related, despite measuring different things (benefits and debt), and using different units (£ and % of GDP). The credit bubble was feeding the whole economy, including increasing government revenues and spending.

It says "real term increases", meaning adjusted for inflation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21706978

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21706978

I hope you are right. And I thought this cap would indeed bring London rents and house prices down by a considerable amount. But I am worried by some numbers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22121323 Only 40,000? Even if they are all in London, that is a pitiful number in a city of some 3 million dwellings. But this other news says that the trial will affect 40k, in those boroughs: http://www.moneyexpert.com/news/benefits-cap-trial-set-affect-40-000-london-households/800581828 Does anybody know the correct estimate please? For the whole London?

"Benefit Fraud Just 0.7 Per Cent Of Welfare Budget" ? ! Could this "0.7" number have anything to do with how narrowly they define "fraud"?? Besides, wouldn't benefit "abuse" bring us a much higher number??

Good points, all of them. I fully agree that London should allow some expansion, like your 1 mile radius example, with spacious modern family homes. But we should also allow more flats in and around central London, for young people who would prefer to live there than in converted Victorian terraces far from central London. We should allow both.

These people are a loooong way down from the likes of James Crosby, Gordon Brown and Mervyn King, aren't they?

Thanks

Is that the tax year? Starting on April 6?

The article is against a "flagship government scheme to boost mortgages" .

I think we can have both. Many London houses have been split into flats, right? So, if we allow a good number of new flats built, then many of those houses would probably gradually revert to being family homes.

Yep. The root problem is that most voters want the "doctor" to keep their houses "wealth" high. Since these voters can fire the doctor, the doctor obeys. And the regulators don't block it.

" 'hair of the dog' approach" Perfect description.

On the demand side, if sharers are considered just one "household", this will understate the real demand. And on the supply side, if splinting a house into flats counts as more "homes", then this data can be also be seriously misleading. I think we should instead compare the population (as opposed to "households") increases, and with actual new-build units. .

Ok, thanks. So, adding them all: 275 + 395 + 1,700 + 450 + 350 + 175 + 150 = 3,495, in 5 years, or some 700/year, in a 3 miles radius. IIRC London has some 8 million people, and some 3 million dwellings. It should be easy to increase this supply by just 1% / year = 30,000/year. Ideally 2% or even 3%. But our dysfunctional land and planning systems don't deliver this. A Land Value Tax and an intelligent planning system would revolutionise all that.

+ 1 Exactly. I've been in this very same journey, but about all mainstream media. It's incredible how low quality our press and broadcaster are.

I'm sure he posts (posted?) here as well, but I don't think these are the main suspects. Cowie being so bitter about this forum must mean that he was a bull here and have been constantly defeated in his debates here, probably thoroughly humiliated too, given his strong resentments - IMHO.

10,000 flats in 8 developments? Do you think that these developments have over a thousand flats each? Or did you mean 10,000 in London, or South London? Freudian slip?

Great post. BTW, this cultural distortion affects this forum too. This thread is a typical example. I've found it on the forum's 2nd page, having had only 4 replies. Supply issues are resisted here too, or ignored. .