Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. Er, no. Presumably they're paying rent at the moment, so if they had a mortgage the money currently being spent on rent would be going towards that instead (unless they're really financially inept, although admittedly anyone who wants to take out a mortgage right at this moment probably is). When I do eventually decide to buy I expect it to cost me more than I put aside every month; I don't expect to suddenly have all my rent money to spend or save on whatever I feel like.
  2. A change is a change. Quite honestly I can't see this making much difference at all to anyone's pocket, but it could have a significant psychological effect (I've heard a few anecdotes of people getting expensive purchases now in order to get them before the rise).
  3. From medieval times, yes, and a lot of those would be from the better end of accommodation at the time. If you're only going back to Georgian or Victorian then they're still here simply because they're built well enough, and most of the ones that have been demolished went due to post-war planners thinking how great it would be to knock them all done and replace them with that wonderful new concrete architecture. In 500 years' time I wouldn't be surprised if there are more 19th century buildings in England than 20th.
  4. Starts off with "Lending restrictions". Sigh. As long as they're the first block for some people we'll remain in trouble. The first block for me as a potential FTB are the prices. I'm not even interested in exploring the availability of mortgages (or lack of) until prices aren't ludicrous. Why on earth is anyone else any different?
  5. Heaven forbid, the last thing I want is for any of them to get any idea about what I spend my money on!
  6. They key is "temporary". If it's affordable (big if) it seems fair to stop people from being thrown out of their homes due a temporary blip in fortunes. That's completely different to propping up someone who took out a ludicrously large mortgage that they'd have never had a hope in hell of being able to keep paying.
  7. Me, unless the price difference is likely to be significant. Once I've made up my mind I hate waiting for something to turn up, almost certainly having to make a trip to the post office to pick it up if it won't fit through the letterbox, which is only open at a useful time once or twice a week. For something under £10 I wouldn't consider buying online at all if I could easily get the same item in a shop. If it's bulky enough it's even worse, involving having to use up one of a far too limited number of days off work, so I'm even less likely to consider online then if it'll fit into the car, unless it's something I couldn't walk out of the shop with anyway.
  8. Obviously true, although IMO it makes a great deal of sense to insist on building on brownfield sites first - without pressure to do so they'll remain derelict, leading to a "slash and burn" approach to development. No brownfield sites and blocking building on greenfield sites is only much of a problem if the population is going up, which is one reason I don't want it to. If you can somehow remove housing needs from consideration all most modern building has done is spoilt where it was built after all, by a greater or lesser extent. Adding to that population and refusing building is hypocricy of course.
  9. Even if you're not talking flats there seems to be a modern anathema against building three storey individual houses (whether they're semis, terraces etc.), yet that seems to be a great way of getting a bigger house without any more land use. Again, past examples of it, such as Georgian and Victorian townhouses, can be highly desirable properties, even though it doesn't do anything about overall density or building on gardens issues. Can add in a cellar for storage too.
  10. Not a great example, since it mentioned off-licences. They can't easily be replaced with online ability. It sounds more like the usual supermarket accusation, but directed in the wrong direction.
  11. There was something on the front page a while back. IIRC it's about 8-10% of developed land in England (obviously includes non-urban land), the Britain figure is reduced due to a lot of Scotland being pretty empty. The fact that you can see evidence of the results of that level of development wherever you go in England suggest to me that whatever the number is the impact of it is fairly high (although I had a rather unpleasant argument about this a while back with someone who only seemed to think that the absolute numbers mattered). So I'd definitely prefer not to increase this number unless necessary, and I'd like to look at changing things so that it becomes less necessary (immigration is the big one here). I certainly think that much better use can be made of land when it is built on. Modern rabbit hutches built on existing gardens seem to manage to combine the worst of all worlds; Georgian and Victorian designers seemed much better at producing fairly high density housing without the downsides. Of course they had problems too, but a lot of them were due to facilities not being available that are now (electricity etc.). And they're probably a bit biased against due to quite a lot of the worst efforts having been demolished, but perhaps time to learn a lesson from history. In summary: Noticeable urban expansion might be necessary to adequately house the population, so I might have to say it should be supported, but certainly not wanted, and not made bigger than necessary due to bad design. Any ethical way of population reduction should be considered, so reduce immigration and stop paying people to breed. End result is a better quality of life. Edit to add: Have the local planning thing, but tie the number of houses to be built to the local birth and death rate. You've got to have the number that goes with it, and they'll go wherever gets the least objections, even if that's only a difference of 95% of people objecting instead of 100%. Another edit to also add: To allow for population mobility different localities could trade some of their required numbers, possibly including some council tax shifting to go with it if needs be. That could also help finance and encourage improvements in run-down areas, so your wealthy suburb that doesn't want more can keep it that way by paying to improve somewhere else.
  12. If building wasn't seen as endless enlargement of urban areas, mostly with bland pokey sub-standard housing, and instead was just a bit of changing around every now and then then perhaps there wouldn't be quite as much objection to it. Tackle the causes of the disease (population growth and crappy building) before the symptoms (people don't want the results of either). Let's face it, just about everything that's been built in the last century has made where it was built a bit uglier (unless it was replacing an even bigger man-made mess). Doing that, and not being bothered about the fact that you're making it necessary to build (beyond replacing old falling down housing), i.e. encouraging an increasing population, has been a disaster IMO.
  13. I don't know about "equally imperfect", considering that the capitalist approach has left everyone else with a more comfortable life than Marxist approaches have, even if the net result of both is to hand most power and wealth to a revolting underserving few. Unless someone manages to invent a completely new system the best is to achieve a suitable balance between the two. A big part of the problem is that when one fails there's usually a movement for lurching to the opposite extreme. The lurch to the left is, IMO, a more understandable one, because it doesn't seem to have rewarding the most self-serving built in to its very ideal; it's just what happens in practice.
  14. I think that by the time of WWII most ships, at least the new ones, were oil powered rather than coal.
  15. Well, people do get a bit over-excited about radioactivity. I've two anecdotes on it. The first was at university, doing some experiments with various samples. We'd been given a whole load of instructions for handling them safely, yet for many we got stronger signals from the walls of the building. The other one is second hand, and comes from my brother at school. Some carefully locked away low-level samples, put a counter next to them, the needle moves up a bit. A kid then points it at a lump of granite he'd picked up off Dartmoor, which sent the counter into far more activity.
  16. Remember that when it comes to nuclear waste a very large proportion of it is pretty harmless really. Most low-level waste is stuff like anything that's been near an X-ray machine for a couple of hours. Not too likely to be a risk to anyone. Dumping it in the sea is a bloody daft idea. It will spread around then. Dumping it down a deep hole in the ground is the way to go. It isn't going to go anywhere and you can keep an eye on it if needs be. Run a few pipes down there and you may be able to get a bit of useful extra heat from it. Anyway, it isn't really an issue, it's just blown up to be one by the anti-nuclear crowd. We've even got away with blasting lumps of plutonium into space (for power sources), but that's a tad expensive.
  17. One of the more annoyingly idiotic rules. When I lived in a flimsy modern flat for a couple of years it had this - so the sockets in the bedroom for the bedside light and my alarm clock stuck up slightly above the top of the bedside table (meaning it couldn't sit against the wall, there was space behind it lower down), anything else was more likely to be tripped over, and the light switches low enough down that I had to stoop slightly (OK, a little exaggeration there, but not much). Stupid. If it's all about disabled access - how were they supposed to get up the stairs to the flat?
  18. Not that much snow here (couple of inches perhaps), and just about everyone seems to be in work. I'm not sure about the most senior managers but who notices them anyway? The sad thing is that although it's not as much snow as back in January its effect is the same, i.e. neither were enough to actually bog down a car, but both are enough to make the road slippery. Yet then it was very quiet. All psychological. As an aside, I would be pretty annoyed if I was forced to take annual leave if I genuinely couldn't get in. As far as I'm concerned I don't see how it's any different from being sick. This lot would probably make you take leave if I turned up only to find they'd closed the office for the day.
  19. They're supplied by rail, so probably stop every time it snows. Point about the NIMBY argument - well, personally I'd rather have a nuclear power station just down the road from me than plaster the countryside with pointless wind turbines. And in some areas (usually where there is or was a plant anyway) I get the impression that there would be more support for a new one than against it. I don't imagine massive local opposition to a modern plant at Sellafield, for example.
  20. They almost sound like they're deliberately trying to wind us up. Now, I wouldn't put it past them, but the way they carry on I sometimes think that they're so out of touch with reality that they honestly believe the nonsense that they spout.
  21. Then let them in anyway, just don't do what we did and let them change us. Change them to become Russian.
  22. And if you tried to be sensible in those conditions you got shoved up the rear. Good analogy.
  23. Right, now a variation: A vase starts off empty. After 6 months it's full of twigs. The number of twigs is doubled every time the estate agent calls. How much is the house worth at first, after 3 months, and after 5 month 25 days?
  24. And how much of that has Labour actually given you? It's all the sort of thing I want too, but there isn't a party offering it. Faced with the choice of various self-serving incompetents who'll ruin the country for their and their cronies' ends it makes more sense to vote for the lot who at least seem to have heard of the idea of not borrowing your way into bankruptcy. Labour have nothing these days to offer to anyone, and I remain puzzled by those who believe that they do. Look at what they are, not what you think they're supposed to be.
  25. Of course it is. Pretty obvious stuff - if you have to keep running ahead just to stay put then you're screwed. Growth for improvement, but you should be able to maintain position and standards without it.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.